User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:23:06 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do. YouTube is entertainment, not journalism. Even if you start out as a serious journalist, the moment you become a talking head spouting opinion you are not longer a journalist. You’re a pundit or entertainer that stomped all over your journalism degree. so, then journalists have never, ever existed, by your definition. Find a single news article in the history of news articles that doesn't include any bias. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:26:06 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: so, then journalists have never, ever existed, by your definition. Find a single news article in the history of news articles that doesn't include any bias. The point is moot. The guy is clearly a journalist which gives him no more protections under the 1A than you or I have to speech in a nonpublic forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:39:29 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, 7 pages of claiming his EGO rules..if he isn't an out right cop, he sure is spending a lot of time trying to convince people he is expert... Reminds me of a poster years ago on Free Republic who went by the name of a character in Fight Club. Same style. A true legend in his own mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:45:52 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the NYC ordinance: § 14-189 Right to record police activities. a. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: Officer. The term “officer” means any peace officer or police officer as defined in the criminal procedure law who is employed by the city of New York, or any special patrolman appointed by the police commissioner pursuant to section 14-106. Police activities. The term “police activities” means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law. Record. The term “record” means to capture or attempt to capture any moving or still image, sound, or impression through the use of any recording device, camera, or any other device capable of capturing audio, moving or still images, or by way of written notes or observations. b. Right to record police activities. A person may record police activities and maintain custody and control of any such recording and of any property or instruments used in such recording. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a person to engage in actions that physically interfere with an official and lawful police function, or to prevent the seizure of any property or instruments used in a recording of police activities where the seizure is otherwise authorized by law, or to prohibit any officer from enforcing any other provision of law. I have little doubt that the departments own legal team determined that not all officer actions are 'under the color of law' and that their posted sign prohibiting recording of their non-public forum space was lawful under the city ordinance, state law, and SCOTUS precedent regarding the 1A. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except the city passed an administrative ordinance in response to the NYPD policy. The police don't have any authority to prohibit being recorded except as set forth in the administrative ordinance the city passed. Supreme Court rulings are meaningless when the police officers' employer places more stringent rules against prohibiting recording. The NYPD has no independent authority to ignore the city administrative code. Here's the NYC ordinance: § 14-189 Right to record police activities. a. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: Officer. The term “officer” means any peace officer or police officer as defined in the criminal procedure law who is employed by the city of New York, or any special patrolman appointed by the police commissioner pursuant to section 14-106. Police activities. The term “police activities” means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law. Record. The term “record” means to capture or attempt to capture any moving or still image, sound, or impression through the use of any recording device, camera, or any other device capable of capturing audio, moving or still images, or by way of written notes or observations. b. Right to record police activities. A person may record police activities and maintain custody and control of any such recording and of any property or instruments used in such recording. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a person to engage in actions that physically interfere with an official and lawful police function, or to prevent the seizure of any property or instruments used in a recording of police activities where the seizure is otherwise authorized by law, or to prohibit any officer from enforcing any other provision of law. I have little doubt that the departments own legal team determined that not all officer actions are 'under the color of law' and that their posted sign prohibiting recording of their non-public forum space was lawful under the city ordinance, state law, and SCOTUS precedent regarding the 1A. Wouldn't the police officer using their authority to command someone to leave a police station lobby be an activity of an officer acting under the color of law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:47:16 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reminds me of a poster years ago on Free Republic who went by the name of a character in Fight Club. Same style. A true legend in his own mind. Never posted there. I'm only a legend in comparison with people that have a clearly low reading comprehension ability. There's plenty of brilliant people here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:48:14 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wouldn't the police officer using their authority to command someone to leave a police station lobby be an activity of an officer acting under the color of law? Yep. ...and notice the guy with him doing the recording wasn't arrested and that he wasn't arrested either until he made entry the second time for trespassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:49:04 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it's the same one that was posted here earlier it doesn't say what you think it very clearly lies out what's considered police activity. No doubt the police department has their own legal department as well.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:51:59 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. ...and notice the guy with him doing the recording wasn't arrested and that he wasn't arrested either until he made entry the second time for trespassing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wouldn't the police officer using their authority to command someone to leave a police station lobby be an activity of an officer acting under the color of law? Yep. ...and notice the guy with him doing the recording wasn't arrested and that he wasn't arrested either until he made entry the second time for trespassing. Your whole premise seems based on the idea that administrative actions aren’t done under the color of law. If it was my money on the line I’d want more than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:52:43 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. ...and notice the guy with him doing the recording wasn't arrested and that he wasn't arrested either until he made entry the second time for trespassing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wouldn't the police officer using their authority to command someone to leave a police station lobby be an activity of an officer acting under the color of law? Yep. ...and notice the guy with him doing the recording wasn't arrested and that he wasn't arrested either until he made entry the second time for trespassing. So he was able to record in the nonpublic forum due the New York City statute explicitly stating as such (which their statute is in line with SCOTUS rulings on nonpublic forum activities). If his interactions with the police were them acting in an official capacity, he has the ability to record them -- how was he trespassing in a public area? In what way did they have the authority to order him to leave the station? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:52:50 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryRight. The term police activities means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law NOT any activity of an officer. Officers in precincts aren't acting under the color of law 24/7 which has its own legal meaning. No doubt the departments legal team determined they were okay preventing recording in that environment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:53:11 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes - every lawyer in every state knows every aspect of the law in that state. It's not like lawyers specialize and need to research cases in advance or that they charge fees for that sort of legal research or anything  Good grief. People cannot really be that ignorant. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Aaah, whadda you know? Not like you're a lawyer who practices in NYS or anything. Yes - every lawyer in every state knows every aspect of the law in that state. It's not like lawyers specialize and need to research cases in advance or that they charge fees for that sort of legal research or anything Good grief. People cannot really be that ignorant. What is the one class you took which should make us believe in the strength of your position? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:54:31 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right. The term police activities means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law NOT any activity of an officer. Officers in precincts aren't acting under the color of law 24/7 which has its own legal meaning. No doubt the departments legal team determined they were okay preventing recording in that environment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Right. The term police activities means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law NOT any activity of an officer. Officers in precincts aren't acting under the color of law 24/7 which has its own legal meaning. No doubt the departments legal team determined they were okay preventing recording in that environment. Any time they try to use their authority or give commands they're acting under the color of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:54:50 PM EST
[#13]
His entire source of income is lawsuits and the beggar handout donations for his legal fees. Some journalist LOL
He used to do better and more 1A educational work but now he is just going after the big jackpots to create revenue like all the other frauditors on YUUTUBEZ. Kind of pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 4:57:40 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your whole premise seems based on the idea that administrative actions aren’t done under the color of law. If it was my money on the line I’d want more than that. In terms of the NYC ordinance - yes it is. If it was my money on the line I wouldn't harass the cops in their precinct for clickbait videos nor support those who do and then expect to show an ordinance with that exception carved into it thinking I would automatically skate after acting like an asshat. This auditor might not think that either but given that the penalty for trespass is $250 and his GoFundMe is at roughly $12,000 + Youtube revenue he has a clear final incentive to test it out. I of course support people recording the police out in public where they're certainly acting under the color of law regardless of what the city or state says - I think that's a Constitutional right and think the SCOTUS precedent supports it as well. Therefore I support the guy's buddy recording the interaction with the police - a guy that wasn't arrested. I have a strong suspicion the NYPD's legal department has the same idea that I have but I guess we'll see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:00:45 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any time they try to use their authority or give commands they're acting under the color of law. Right. ...and was he arrested for recording a video? No. Were they acting under the color of law before he started recorded them from a nonpublic forum? Per your own analysis - no. I bet you'd have a compelling argument if he was inside the police station for a purpose other than recording and started witnessing some sort of arrest or clear 'color of law' use of authority by the police and then began to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:10:13 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here's the NYC ordinance: 14-189 Right to record police activities. a. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings: Officer. The term "officer" means any peace officer or police officer as defined in the criminal procedure law who is employed by the city of New York, or any special patrolman appointed by the police commissioner pursuant to section 14-106. Police activities. The term "police activities" means any activity of an officer acting under the color of law. Record. The term "record" means to capture or attempt to capture any moving or still image, sound, or impression through the use of any recording device, camera, or any other device capable of capturing audio, moving or still images, or by way of written notes or observations. b. Right to record police activities. A person may record police activities and maintain custody and control of any such recording and of any property or instruments used in such recording. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit a person to engage in actions that physically interfere with an official and lawful police function, or to prevent the seizure of any property or instruments used in a recording of police activities where the seizure is otherwise authorized by law, or to prohibit any officer from enforcing any other provision of law. I have little doubt that the departments own legal team determined that not all officer actions are 'under the color of law' and that their posted sign prohibiting recording of their non-public forum space was lawful under the city ordinance, state law, and SCOTUS precedent regarding the 1A. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:16:25 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I of course support people recording the police out in public where they're certainly acting under the color of law regardless of what the city or state says - I think that's a Constitutional right and think the SCOTUS precedent supports it as well. Therefore I support the guy's buddy recording the interaction with the police - a guy that wasn't arrested. I have a strong suspicion the NYPD's legal department has the same idea that I have but I guess we'll see. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Your whole premise seems based on the idea that administrative actions aren’t done under the color of law. If it was my money on the line I’d want more than that. I of course support people recording the police out in public where they're certainly acting under the color of law regardless of what the city or state says - I think that's a Constitutional right and think the SCOTUS precedent supports it as well. Therefore I support the guy's buddy recording the interaction with the police - a guy that wasn't arrested. I have a strong suspicion the NYPD's legal department has the same idea that I have but I guess we'll see. Does anyone actually believe this? This guy sounds like he'd be pointing out people the Gestapo forgot to ask for papers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:17:59 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, if you're not a cop you need to turn in your guns, as they're the only ones professional enough to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Even if employed by CNN they are no longer journalists if they do opinion and entertainment instead of news. You sure draw a hard fucking line in the sand on this. I do. YouTube is entertainment, not journalism. Even if you start out as a serious journalist, the moment you become a talking head spouting opinion you are not longer a journalist. You’re a pundit or entertainer that stomped all over your journalism degree. If you ever start to wonder why the American public is turning against your profession, look in a mirror for the answer. The public is turning against retired small business owners and investors? Well, if you're not a cop you need to turn in your guns, as they're the only ones professional enough to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. From his posts here over the years it's pretty clear he used to be a LEO in the bay area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:21:23 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:24:05 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does anyone actually believe this? This guy sounds like he'd be pointing out people the Gestapo forgot to ask for papers. Oh so because I've schooled you on a nonpublic forum - I must automatically be a Nazi. Invoke some variation of Godwin's law because you can't build a compelling argument based on facts.  Pathetic. "I of course support people recording the police out in public where they're certainly acting under the color of law regardless of what the city or state says - I think that's a Constitutional right and think the SCOTUS precedent supports it as well. Therefore I support the guy's buddy recording the interaction with the police - a guy that wasn't arrested." I'll state it again for you though since it's 100% correct and my absolute belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:26:50 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: His entire source of income is lawsuits and the beggar handout donations for his legal fees. Some journalist LOL He used to do better and more 1A educational work but now he is just going after the big jackpots to create revenue like all the other frauditors on YUUTUBEZ. Kind of pathetic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:29:16 PM EST
[#22]
Aimless, is there a CoC for "advocating tyranny"? I'm sure you can come with that easier than the NYPD comes up with charges for following city law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:29:31 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh so because I've schooled you on a nonpublic forum - I must automatically be a Nazi. Invoke some variation of Godwin's law because you can't build a compelling argument based on facts. Pathetic. Schooled who? I've never believed one word you have posted in this thread, still don't...I don't know about NAZI per say, but tyrant fits better if you are or have been some kind of cop...Hopefully you aren't a cop, just because of Americans who have/had to deal with you... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:29:40 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He is an activist baiting the cops and they fell for it. In NYC that is common. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Journalist my ass  He is an activist baiting the cops and they fell for it. In NYC that is common. About like blacks in the 1950's baited cops by sitting in the main dining area, sitting on the wrong bus seat, drinking from the fountain, and so on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:31:17 PM EST
[#25]
The statute is so broad that in some bizarre scenarios the courts will just say "oh we didn't mean that"
It would be interesting to see what a court says about cops moving or damaging surveillance cameras. Would the court side with someone live-streaming police attempting to surreptitiously rescue a kidnap victim when the police make him stop? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:38:52 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. "The Supreme Court has recognized that “the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech” in a nonpublic forum, including imposing restrictions based on content, “so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral. In any event - the USSC has already declared that the government can restrict speech in non-public forums - let alone recording." And you continue to ignore the fact that the government can relax or even rescind previous restrictions in non-public forums. Between the city and state I would say it is covered pretty well. You are wrong yet again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:40:57 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Schooled who? I've never believed one word you have posted in this thread, still don't...I don't know about NAZI per say, but tyrant fits better if you are or have been some kind of cop...Hopefully you aren't a cop, just because of Americans who have/had to deal with you... Never been a cop - never tried to be. Who the fuck would want to deal with idiots like this auditor at their work for such a pittance? Who the fuck would want to deal with colleagues that are working toward their associates degree and simultaneously going around fucking over citizens? No one with a brain wants to be a cop but I respect anyone foolish enough to try it and do it legally, morally, and ethically and I don't feel the need to 'pile on' like ACAB cop haters that seem to be all over ARFCOM. Some of the guys posting in this thread spend half their time posting in anti-cop threads just based on a rough cursory search. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:43:05 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "The Supreme Court has recognized that “the government has much more flexibility to craft rules limiting speech” in a nonpublic forum, including imposing restrictions based on content, “so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint-neutral. In any event - the USSC has already declared that the government can restrict speech in non-public forums - let alone recording." And you continue to ignore the fact that the government can relax or even rescind previous restrictions in non-public forums. Between the city and state I would say it is covered pretty well. You are wrong yet again. Herp derp. No where did I ever state that the city and state couldn't relax that bro. Try to keep up. In any case, I'm glad you're starting to learn a little bit about the 1st amendment through your own research. The key to exercising your rights is knowing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 5:47:01 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. The city can give its citizens a greater right than what they have under SC rulings. Color of Law means activities carried out as a governmental agent and can be expanded beyond on duty actions. Filming a police officer eating his lunch wouldn't be covered or following him home after work even if he's in a take home car in uniform. If he sees someone in his drive home off the clock who the officer mistakenly thinks is violating an order of protection and the officer stops and wrestles the suspect into cuffs he's back into "color of law" |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 6:51:41 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right. ...and was he arrested for recording a video? No. Were they acting under the color of law before he started recorded them from a nonpublic forum? Per your own analysis - no. I bet you'd have a compelling argument if he was inside the police station for a purpose other than recording and started witnessing some sort of arrest or clear 'color of law' use of authority by the police and then began to do it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Any time they try to use their authority or give commands they're acting under the color of law. Right. ...and was he arrested for recording a video? No. Were they acting under the color of law before he started recorded them from a nonpublic forum? Per your own analysis - no. I bet you'd have a compelling argument if he was inside the police station for a purpose other than recording and started witnessing some sort of arrest or clear 'color of law' use of authority by the police and then began to do it. As soon as they go to confront him they're acting under the color of law. Essentially any interaction he has with them would be under color of law -- so it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If he sees police acting under color of law, which they would be doing in a police station (taking police reports, answering questions, etc.), he is able to record them under NYC statute. How is he considered trespassing in an area open to the public? He has a right to be there, and he has a right to record the police acting under color of law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:08:31 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:21:35 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Never been a cop - never tried to be. Who the fuck would want to deal with idiots like this auditor at their work for such a pittance? Who the fuck would want to deal with colleagues that are working toward their associates degree and simultaneously going around fucking over citizens? No one with a brain wants to be a cop but I respect anyone foolish enough to try it and do it legally, morally, and ethically and I don't feel the need to 'pile on' like ACAB cop haters that seem to be all over ARFCOM. Some of the guys posting in this thread spend half their time posting in anti-cop threads just based on a rough cursory search. I've noticed those who bitch loudest about all the "ACAB cop haters" as you put it, are involved with cops somehow, and seem to think cops can do whatever they want when ever they want..fortunately Americans have better protections then most countries and are protected from the same "cops" as long as they stand up to them..Funny how the cops always cry "ACAB" about every poster, even those behind the COPS when they are doing things right..Personally it is very simple to not have Citizens bitching about you, operate inside the Constitution and the oath and the rule of law, most citizens will never have a bad thing to say...including all those on this forum.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:23:27 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? Statutes? We don't need no stinkin' statutes. He took a class lawyers take and is, therefore, more educated and informed than lawyers admitted to the Bar of the state in which the events within the video occured. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:24:26 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've noticed those who bitch loudest about all the "ACAB cop haters" as you put it, are involved with cops somehow...  Attached FileIt seems like LEO, or those adjacent to them, are the only ones who ever use this phrase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:26:04 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg It seems like LEO, or those adjacent to them, are the only ones who ever use this phrase. It was common in the blm style riots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:28:50 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was common in the blm style riots. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg It seems like LEO, or those adjacent to them, are the only ones who ever use this phrase. It was common in the blm style riots. Interestingly, someone using the phrase by itself would be unwelcomed from the site. Cops using it to denigrate members of the forum are free to use it though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:53:58 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is the one class you took which should make us believe in the strength of your position? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Aaah, whadda you know? Not like you're a lawyer who practices in NYS or anything. Yes - every lawyer in every state knows every aspect of the law in that state. It's not like lawyers specialize and need to research cases in advance or that they charge fees for that sort of legal research or anything Good grief. People cannot really be that ignorant. What is the one class you took which should make us believe in the strength of your position? He has been asked multiple times. I think he is shy. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 7:56:38 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From his posts here over the years it's pretty clear he used to be a LEO in the bay area. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Even if employed by CNN they are no longer journalists if they do opinion and entertainment instead of news. You sure draw a hard fucking line in the sand on this. I do. YouTube is entertainment, not journalism. Even if you start out as a serious journalist, the moment you become a talking head spouting opinion you are not longer a journalist. You’re a pundit or entertainer that stomped all over your journalism degree. If you ever start to wonder why the American public is turning against your profession, look in a mirror for the answer. The public is turning against retired small business owners and investors? Well, if you're not a cop you need to turn in your guns, as they're the only ones professional enough to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. From his posts here over the years it's pretty clear he used to be a LEO in the bay area. I don’t know about the LEO part but he definitely reminds me of the Big City Thinker! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:22:47 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg It seems like LEO, or those adjacent to them, are the only ones who ever use this phrase. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've noticed those who bitch loudest about all the "ACAB cop haters" as you put it, are involved with cops somehow... /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/hes_right_you_know-328.jpg It seems like LEO, or those adjacent to them, are the only ones who ever use this phrase. which phrase? ACAB cop haters? We definitely have a few of those here. I am definitely not with the cop haters that have lost the ability to reason. No different than the cops that won't consider their fellow officers are the problem sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 8:41:57 PM EST
[#40]
As just an average dude reading through the posts/arguments it appears to me that dirtystucco does not have the ability to critically think and make a decision on new information/arguments supplied.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:00:22 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Statutes? We don't need no stinkin' statutes. He took a class lawyers take and is, therefore, more educated and informed than lawyers admitted to the Bar of the state in which the events within the video occured. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? Statutes? We don't need no stinkin' statutes. He took a class lawyers take and is, therefore, more educated and informed than lawyers admitted to the Bar of the state in which the events within the video occured. Taking the class isn't important. He placed top in the one single class. Placing first grants him immediate superiority to anyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:01:27 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Taking the class isn't important. He placed top in the one single class. Placing first grants him immediate superiority to anyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? Statutes? We don't need no stinkin' statutes. He took a class lawyers take and is, therefore, more educated and informed than lawyers admitted to the Bar of the state in which the events within the video occured. Taking the class isn't important. He placed top in the one single class. Placing first grants him immediate superiority to anyone else. Maybe my grad school was weird, be I didn't know the ranking of my classmates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:05:24 PM EST
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 9:21:20 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe my grad school was weird, be I didn't know the ranking of my classmates. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Under color of law just means someone is acting as an agent of the government v private individual with No government affiliation. As a private attorney I don't act under color of law. If I am appointed as a special prosecutor I am acting under color of law. Sitting at a desk in uniform in a lobby on the clock is under color of law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 You think it's a defense to 18 USC 242 that an officer violated someone's constitutional rights in a lobby of a police station? You don't have much of a 1A right in the lobby of a police station - it's a nonpublic forum per SCOTUS. Now you want to talk about 18 USC 242 when previously it was only the NYC ordinance you could point to? ...and no - sitting at a desk in a lobby on the clock isn't acting under the color of law. Color of law is the legal appearance to actions - with or without legitimacy. Sitting at a desk is most certainly not automatically a police activity under the "color of law" no more than taking a shit while in uniform is. If your point was true - that 'color of law' was anything and everything - police activity wouldn't need to be defined by the ordinance in the first place. On what statute are you basing your definition of “under the color of law”? Statutes? We don't need no stinkin' statutes. He took a class lawyers take and is, therefore, more educated and informed than lawyers admitted to the Bar of the state in which the events within the video occured. Taking the class isn't important. He placed top in the one single class. Placing first grants him immediate superiority to anyone else. Maybe my grad school was weird, be I didn't know the ranking of my classmates. Trust me. If the Professor put 2 smiley face stickers on your exam and a gold star sticker then you would know you were tops. Deffecateddo got 4 stickers, not just 3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 10:34:06 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes - every lawyer in every state knows every aspect of the law in that state. It's not like lawyers specialize and need to research cases in advance or that they charge fees for that sort of legal research or anything Good grief. People cannot really be that ignorant. You're lining up your legal knowledge/expertise against a guy who passed the bar in NYS? How many years have you practiced in New York? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2023 11:26:22 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're lining up your legal knowledge/expertise against a guy who passed the bar in NYS? How many years have you practiced in New York? Bro he's basically the same as the top lawyers |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2023 12:38:53 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bro he's basically the same as the top lawyers Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You're lining up your legal knowledge/expertise against a guy who passed the bar in NYS? How many years have you practiced in New York? Bro he's basically the same as the top lawyers He took a class in grad school that was the SAME as the one attorneys took, bro. As some one that went to grad school and later went to law school. I find his assertions cringe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2023 5:40:37 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He took a class in grad school that was the SAME as the one attorneys took, bro. As some one that went to grad school and later went to law school. I find his assertions cringe. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're lining up your legal knowledge/expertise against a guy who passed the bar in NYS? How many years have you practiced in New York? Bro he's basically the same as the top lawyers He took a class in grad school that was the SAME as the one attorneys took, bro. As some one that went to grad school and later went to law school. I find his assertions cringe. Obviously you weren't top in the class or you'd understand the power and knowledge he wields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2023 7:47:33 AM EST
[#49]
Shocking that a group - many of whom have downplayed degrees in the first place and probably don't have one themselves - throwing out never-ending ad-hominems.
You guys must take this thread really personally. How much did you donate to his
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/5/2023 8:03:10 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shocking that a group - many of whom have downplayed degrees in the first place and probably don't have one themselves - throwing out never-ending ad-hominems. You guys must take this thread really personally. How much did you donate to his You think they are the ones who seem to be taking this thread personally?!  So how many times has LIA embarrassed you on camera? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
