Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Sadly though, this one beneficial accident is outweighed by the misuses/non uses when it should be used etc.

This wasn't CCTV, was it...

Now if you were arguing for the virtues of liberty to carry Camera Phones...

What a mark of corruption it may be that the cop thought he would have gotten away with it with all those witnesses there anyway...
Tool. He he lost his jerrrrb.

this video reminds me of when i shove people off of their horses in, Red Dead Redemption.

That's pretty cool....justice getting served up where it should.



I wish that all public streets had massive camera arrays. There could be laws in place which restricts access to the video to only times of court cases: criminal and civil.

A bit behind on the latest this. The cop was given a conditional discharge- no punishment.

I like the fact that someone steals the guy's bike.

nah.. the problem isnt individual filming each other.. the problem comes when states feel they can film citizens b4 they commit a crime by use of traffic and street cameras..

i never had a problem with ppl carrying or video taping their own property my problem is when the government feels it can do the same.

now you have police arresting ppl and ticketing them without catching them commit a crime but by video.. plus also i dont like police confiscating private property/videos...

i had a problem where videos would have found me and my friend innocent had the police not "confiscated" them and lost them..

Originally posted by jaden101
I like the fact that someone steals the guy's bike.

Person's white, so it's not stealing.

american cops try to use that bull it never flies... the whole you cant film me its anti terror BS legislation...

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
american cops try to use that bull it never flies... the whole you cant film me its anti terror BS legislation... They have a point though.... If it's in the law it should either be abided by or removed.

what i am saying it doesnt fly b/c they are hiding behind the wrong law..

you are allowed to film cops in public areas and private property.. your own.

cops and public servants have no expectations of privacy.

the problem that some cops try to hide behind some BS anti terror laws that bush signed off on.. the problem is it doesnt fly some kids have caught cops saying that and have gotten them in trouble for using the anti terror sh#$ wrong..

cops can request but you dont have to comply apparently only three states makes it illegal to film cops iirc..

Originally posted by Robtard
Person's white, so it's not stealing.

Publicly funded bailout?

Originally posted by Robtard
Person's white, so it's not stealing.

Indeed.

It's just a tax.

I am glad that it got track down.But I do argee it is like Big Brother and that is not a good thing in my book.

It was some person's personal camera.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A bit behind on the latest this. The cop was given a conditional discharge- no punishment.

But that was a clear assault, he should have gotten time for GBH.

I thought cops got heavier sentences than nornmal people due to their standing?

YouTube comments are full of fail.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
But that was a clear assault, he should have gotten time for GBH.

I thought cops got heavier sentences than nornmal people due to their standing?

Jury cleared him of assault. He was only done for falsifying his report.

It still does not make it right.

... well no, but being cleared by a jury is significant, especially to those who would put this down to police corruption. The case came to trial, but it failed in the analysis as far as the jury saw it.

The jury can be won over think of the OJ trail and what happen with that.

Yeah but if you are going to go around challenging jury verdicts you are getting onto a whole different subject.

The fact is that the system tried its best to prosecute this guy.

They should had but what is done I guess.

if they were going for just assault the guy can ask to have him retried under a different law.. like false imprisonment..

No, I'd imagine the court wouldn't accept any further prosecutions related to the incident. They went for what they wanted and got what they could.

pretty sure its up to the guy and his lawyer to refile dont think the prosecution can say no if a law was actually broken and had warrant to it..

i mean its just imo i'm not a lawyer or anything.

Nah, there are all sorts of precedents that stop the essential nature of a case being retried. You don't prosecute each crime separately; you do it all at once. Any charges they didn't try to prosecute now never will be.

tv like: CIS, cold case and law and order says different,,,

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
tv like: CIS, cold case and law and order says different,,,

Then it must be true. It is illegal to lie on TV.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then it must be true. It is illegal to lie on TV.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Then it must be true. It is illegal to lie on TV. actually i also saw possible ways to retry the bart cop since the family dont feel he was properly punish by bringing different charges and the mayor has offered to help and have him charged in a federal court..

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
tv like: CIS, cold case and law and order says different,,,

A cold case generally refers to something that never came to trial; an unfinished investigation.

This isn't remotely similar. Once you have been tried for crimes relating to an incident, that closes the book for further criminal trials on that incident. I think you could possibly claim double jeopardy, anyway, as you cannot be tried twice for the same incident on the same facts.

Nor am I even certain that a false imprisonment charge would have ever stood up in court, as the only thing that has been legally established is that Pogan faked paperwork. The cyclist was released and his lawsuit was settled, so that part of it is all over.

Basically- if it had been at all practical to get him on it, they would have tried. Now it won't ever happen.

So basically if we reversed the roles having the policeman on the bike and John Doe in the street, does John Doe get charged for assault?

The comedy of hypocrisy is endless

isnt it? it really is corruption at the judicial lvl and preference.. cops are at times given an out while a civilian is charged more harshly for attacking a policemen..

i say the dude should take him to civil court sue his @$$ off

Except he can't, since it is already done with. Our court system deliberately prevents people from taking further action once a jury has declared a verdict.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Except he can't, since it is already done with. Our court system deliberately prevents people from taking further action once a jury has declared a verdict.

I thought you could get both a civil and criminal trial in some circumstances.

you can.

Originally posted by King Castle
isnt it? it really is corruption at the judicial lvl and preference.. cops are at times given an out while a civilian is charged more harshly for attacking a policemen..

i say the dude should take him to civil court sue his @$$ off

Again, calling this corruption is not appropriate. He was not covered by the system; the system tried to take him down. It was the jury that cleared him.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you could get both a civil and criminal trial in some circumstances.

You got me there, honestly didn't think of that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, calling this corruption is not appropriate. He was not covered by the system; the system tried to take him down. It was the jury that cleared him.

Well, the system could of course try in a way to lean the jury in one way or another, no? Not that I think that happened here, but potentially, say if that happened in Iraq, and they put on a "trial" to prove the innocence.

As for the civil court thing, from what I understand, watching Ally McBeal all my live, he could be sued, but it doesn't seem like he was harmed very much, so I don't think there'd be much in for him.

He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case.

well its not that absurd the bart cop trial the jury selection was extremely bias there was not a single black person in the jury..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case. He did? Well, then it does sound like that was settled.

It seems like everything went fine really, although it does look like assault to me, he lost his job, which he really didn't seem fit for, the guy in question got reparations, youtube got another video, everyone wins.

Yeah, it's pretty absurd. It is also a poor thing to cry 'jury tampering' the moment things go the way you do not want them to.

Meanwhile, whilst mistakes are made, I am always hesitant to criticise a jury verdict when I was not there in the courtroom actually listening to the case details. One youtube video does not make us experts.

i am curious if the second officer said anything about the situation and filed his own report of the situation..

if he saw what happen and said or did nothing he is just as liable as the other officer and should be fired.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He already got $85000 via suit; that issue is pretty much closed.

And I think the idea the jury was nobbled is too absurd to be considered in such a case.

Do you know who forked out the $85000 ?

Maybe I was asking for much.

I cannot find any mention anywhere of an $85,000 suit and If it's the state of New York that's forking out the money, and I was a taxpayer, I would be livid to say the least.

Just checked. It was $65000 and I believe it was indeed from the city.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Meanwhile, whilst mistakes are made, I am always hesitant to criticise a jury verdict when I was not there in the courtroom actually listening to the case details. One youtube video does not make us experts.

I always thought the video, immediately, made the person an expert. (in this particular case.)


This is what we can conclude from the video:

False police report filed.

Biker tried to avoid the officer.

The officer went out of his way to get in the biker's way.

The Biker actually went too far out of the officer's way so the Officer lunged at him to make contact.

Biker got laid the **** out. (was funny to watch)

The end.


Pretty clear cut and dry and no amount of "court case evidence" is needed at all to see that unlawful assault occured.



Was their a martial law declaration? Was there a "no bike allowed" zone?

If the former, force justified. If the latter, still not justified.





Similar to another video where this lady was accused of hitting another in the eye and the video clearly showed that she was just barely tapped on the back of the head with pieces of paper.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I always thought the video, immediately, made the person an expert. (in this particular case.)


This is what we can conclude from the video:

False police report filed.

Biker tried to avoid the officer.

The officer went out of his way to get in the biker's way.

The Biker actually went too far out of the officer's way so the Officer lunged at him to make contact.

Biker got laid the **** out. (was funny to watch)

The end.


Pretty clear cut and dry and no amount of "court case evidence" is needed at all to see that unlawful assault occured.



Was their a martial law declaration? Was there a "no bike allowed" zone?

If the former, force justified. If the latter, still not justified.





Similar to another video where this lady was accused of hitting another in the eye and the video clearly showed that she was just barely tapped on the back of the head with pieces of paper.

And I remember this video:

JvUTtjsOemw

Thinking watching that video makes you an expert on the entire case is a very foolish position indeed. Laws and courts are a complex business and the amount of detail that goes into a conviction is immense. The judge may well have advised the jury to take into consideration a whole range of factors other than the literal facts of the incident- such as the defendant's state of mind and intent.

If the jury was not completely convinced beyond doubt that his intent was malicious, then they had to acquit. This would not have made the officer's actions correct, but it might have made them, legally speaking, NOT assault.

And to get those impressions, you would have had to have been in the court and listening to all of the witness testimony and relevant background information, and the judge's comments on what would and would not make it assault.

None of us did any of that, and to think that we know all the ins and outs of the case is very silly indeed. This sort of rush to judgement shows some of the worst sides of the human condition.

are you a cop? remember you have to tell me if you are?

no watching a video doesnt make us legal nor visual experts but thinking that we need to be in order to form an opinion and pass judgment either based on emotion or interpretation of the law is asinine and its whats wrong with the legal system in itself when it becomes nothing more then who can PR better and discredit others..

what we saw and what we know is enough to say it was a crime now it is up for the system to decide the punishment if any hence why it was taken to court in the 1st place.

i personally believe the police officers punishment was too lenient but that shows how justice is not the same with modern law nor does it go hand in hand

There is nothing in the least bit asinine about thinking that the opinion of a person who was watched a video of an incident and nothing more is inferior to the opinions of those who sat through an entire court case on the matter and would have received legal advice on the rules involved.

This sort of automatic thinking that the jury must have all been either idiots or crooked speaks poorly of those that think it- especially when you are speaking from a position of relative ignorance. If you had actually been in the court yourself every day I might have a higher regard for your opinion.

You say it was a crime. The jury disagrees. That's the bottom line with justice. He was only done on falsifying the paperwork.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is nothing in the least bit asinine about thinking that the opinion of a person who was watched a video of an incident and nothing more is inferior to the opinions of those who sat through an entire court case on the matter and would have received legal advice on the rules involved.

This sort of automatic thinking that the jury must have all been either idiots or crooked speaks poorly of those that think it- especially when you are speaking from a position of relative ignorance. If you had actually been in the court yourself every day I might have a higher regard for your opinion.

You say it was a crime. The jury disagrees. That's the bottom line with justice. He was only done on falsifying the paperwork.

Well, the jury is made up of the people. It's a fair bet to say that a good percentile of it are idiots.

This may well be true, but I would rather judge potential idiocy by evidence rather than assumption- and assuming you know more than the jury is one such sort of evidence.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Thinking watching that video makes you an expert on the entire case is a very foolish position indeed. Laws and courts are a complex business and the amount of detail that goes into a conviction is immense. The judge may well have advised the jury to take into consideration a whole range of factors other than the literal facts of the incident- such as the defendant's state of mind and intent.

If the jury was not completely convinced beyond doubt that his intent was malicious, then they had to acquit. This would not have made the officer's actions correct, but it might have made them, legally speaking, NOT assault.

And to get those impressions, you would have had to have been in the court and listening to all of the witness testimony and relevant background information, and the judge's comments on what would and would not make it assault.

None of us did any of that, and to think that we know all the ins and outs of the case is very silly indeed. This sort of rush to judgement shows some of the worst sides of the human condition.


Nah. I think watching the video makes me an expert on the events that occured.

Namely: Criminal force was applied. Illegal. Criminal.

Falsification of police records to cover up guilt.

Innocense of the biker.




That's all from the video. Open and shut case. Nothing more would need to be argued.

Basically, this same information, when presented in court, doesn't magically become different.

Well, you go on thinking like that then. Says a lot about you.

Some chick made a youtube vid trying to help underpriviliged kids and added a Charlie Chaplin song to it. Now she's in the middle of a copyright infringement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah. I think watching the video makes me an expert on the events that occured.

Namely: Criminal force was applied. Illegal. Criminal.

Falsification of police records to cover up guilt.

Innocense of the biker.




That's all from the video. Open and shut case. Nothing more would need to be argued.

Basically, this same information, when presented in court, doesn't magically become different.

Say it was a child rapist the police officer recognized and he pushed him over to arrest him before he got away, would that not change the circumstances with the exact same video?

no.. b/c it doesnt change the fact that the police officer used illegal force and falsified police report..

ppl magically assume b/c a criminal is beaten and abused its okay whether its done outside in society or in prison a crime is still a crime regardless of ones past actions.

also i dont know why that charlie chaplin chick isnt jail with no bail what she did is criminal and deserves to be locked up for life

Originally posted by Bardock42
Say it was a child rapist the police officer recognized and he pushed him over to arrest him before he got away, would that not change the circumstances with the exact same video?

Or he could have even been clocked by the copper when he snatched a bag, OR disobeyed an order to stop by another copper further up the road OR he smelt like a doughnut.

The possibilities are endless

Originally posted by Bardock42
Say it was a child rapist the police officer recognized and he pushed him over to arrest him before he got away, would that not change the circumstances with the exact same video?

But those aren't the facts.


Any my post clearly indicates that I have that understanding.



If you want to move into a hypothetical that I don't have sufficient facts on, then I can't make a judgment call.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, you go on thinking like that then. Says a lot about you.

You're right: it says that I don't believe in some make-believe facts that magically appear in court when presented by a slick-talking city lawyer.

No judgment call has to be made. Since we KNOW that he wasn't being taken down because the cop thought he was a child rapist murderer, or anything silly like that, you should take it for what it is on the video: a criminal physically assaulting a random person (with very real "deadly" ramifications from the assault) and then using his power to make himself appear innocent. That's two pretty big crimes and those two crimes are FACTS, not some random shit that is made up. Jury was a bunch of idiots.

i dont think they are slick b/c they are city dwellers,..

CgZNhGAnA3Y&feature=related

Originally posted by dadudemon
But those aren't the facts.


Any my post clearly indicates that I have that understanding.



If you want to move into a hypothetical that I don't have sufficient facts on, then I can't make a judgment call.


Well, my point was that there may be information that is not present in the video, which is true.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my point was that there may be information that is not present in the video, which is true.

I know, but that wasn't my point.


My post clearly indicated that the video + the facts = pretty much an "expert" on the case.


Go back and reread my post I made about it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I know, but that wasn't my point.


My post clearly indicated that the video + the facts = pretty much an "expert" on the case.


Go back and reread my post I made about it.

Nah, you didn't say anything about additional facts in the post I addressed. You claimed the video alone made you an expert on the events that occurred.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0908/facebook-facebook-funny-unemployment-demotivational-poster-1250729171.jpg

HECMVdl-9SQ

On a related note and seeing how this is making the news again at the moment, here's the footage of Ian Tomlinson being attacked by police at the g20 protests in London.

Tomlinson was walking home from work when a police officer struck him in the legs with a baton before pushing him to the ground.

Within minutes of the attack, Tomlinson lapsed in to unconsciousness and died.

This week it was announced that noone would be charged or held accountable for his death.

Originally posted by jaden101
HECMVdl-9SQ

On a related note and seeing how this is making the news again at the moment, here's the footage of Ian Tomlinson being attacked by police at the g20 protests in London.

Tomlinson was walking home from work when a police officer struck him in the legs with a baton before pushing him to the ground.

Within minutes of the attack, Tomlinson lapsed in to unconsciousness and died.

This week it was announced that noone would be charged or held accountable for his death.

Oh be serious, look at the way he is walking infront of the police, he wasn't in a rush to get anywhere. He provoked it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, you didn't say anything about additional facts in the post I addressed. You claimed the video alone made you an expert on the events that occurred.


I certainly did.

Re-read the post.





Edit - To make your life easier, here are the two additional facts that cannot be directly taken from the video, but require the video in order to prove:

"Falsification of police records to cover up guilt.

Innocence of the biker."