By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 26 December 2011
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

Taping police officers shouldn't be a crime.

Though a lot of the "cut edits" used that you see on you tube should be though, under basic slander laws.

15 years is excessive though.

It's odd though that they didn't even bother to get the otherside of the story. Which is the law was enacted because gang members were bugging cops to get details of their investigation and to get personal information.

Or mention that there is an exception that allows you to record police when there is a reasonable expectation that they are going to do something illegal.  Though that's why you need to actually read more then one article on a subject rather then blindly believe the first youtube video/article you see.

As for the 75 years thing.  No doubt it's 15 years concurrent for each charge... and nevermind the fact that the maxiums never get handed out anyway.

Did you watch the video?  The reporters did try to get the other side of the story, but they weren't allow to be given an interview.  Watch the video.  It goes into details there on it.

The amount you go through here to try to backflip and stand in opposition to things I say, to try to think I am in the wrong is stunning. 

Why wouldn't I consider what is going on for nefarious reasons, those things I question, when you see what happened with Occupy Houston, for example.  Care to explain why the police drop a tent over protesters so they can't be filmed being arrested?

Considering what is going on, the fact I have issues with the wording of the NDAA, you would then go off and argue that it is fine, and American citizens will never get detained indefinitely, and I am also making that up.  Why do you do this?  You insist on being contrary for giggles?  Is all that is needed is to elect ANY Republican, except Ron Paul, and we will all live happily ever after?  


They asked one official, when you could of asked a dozen lawyers for the reasoning behind it.  Like a ton of other articles did that wern't so sensationalistic in it's wording?

Why would they drop a tent over protestors filming people being arrested?

Probably because they were sick of police officers just doing their jobs often getting a bad wrap for such films are often cut and posted for slanderous reasons?

And No.  I do have a problem with the NDAA.

I just tend to be a little more even keeled and logical with a lot of this stuff, because I do more then just pay attention to the first youtube video I see on this stuff doing my best to get all sides of every story before I form an opinion.

I'm not particularly for this law however It's not what people are exagerrating it to be however and does have valid reasons to exist... and does have a clause that would let people out of trouble who are particularly being abused by the law.

 

Oh, and as for electing any republican.  As it stands if I was forced to vote for a candidate, I'd vote for Obama, because all the frontrunning Presidential candiates suck.