Force Protection
By Mitch Berg
It seems the St. Paul Police Department and/or the Ramsey County Sheriff office (the article is a little unclear on which) has gotten itself involved in a First Amendment case.
Now, to me, the case itself, involving a police dustup with of those “First Amendment activists” who seems to have all the time in the world to prowl the streets with a video camera trolling for the faintest whiff of police misconduct – is less interesting than this quote from an officer of the St. Paul police union (Emphasis added):
“I don’t know of a time in our profession where we as cops have needed to be any more vigilant about our personal safety and the security of our facilities, than the present,” said Mark Ross, treasurer of the St. Paul police union.
Blame it on cable TV; cops aren’t the only ones who think it’s the most dangerous time in history.
It’s not:
Even with the uptick in the past year or two, it’s less dangerous than it was five years ago. Or ten years ago. There are are 1/4 fewer cop killings than there were 20 years ago. And less than half as many as a little over forty years ago; 1973-74 were more dangerous than 9/11.
I added emphasis to this part:
“There are safety considerations too numerous to list as to why a person making videos of police officers and police facilities creates enough reasonable suspicion to stop, detain and identify somebody engaged in that type of activity.”
Too numerous to list? No, I think it’s worth a little time and discussion.
Go ahead and list the “safety considerations” of people videotaping cops, officer.
Every last one of them.
I get it; the “video activist” involved was one of those pains in the ass who’s constantly sniffing around looking for something to wave around; he’s sort of like an assistant county attorney, if you think about it.
But let’s hear the “safety considerations” that a guy with a camera offers you that every other person out there, no matter what they’re doing, doesn’t also present every police officer, everywhere.
I’m serious.
May 28th, 2015 at 8:01 am
“Every last one of them.” How about listing just one. One legitimate reason.
May 28th, 2015 at 8:50 am
I didn’t need it, but I appreciate St. Paul officer Armando Abla-Reyes’ willingness to demonstrate the ease and alacrity with which coppers lie.
His initial reasoning was sound. Cop shops are secure buildings, and could certainly be targeted for violent actions. Not every crook is smart enough to realize the error of collecting intel right out in the open, so sure, go find out who and what.
After that, everything Reyes said was a lie, and unlawful which proves that not every copper is smart enough to realize the error of breaking his oath and the law right out in the open.
May 28th, 2015 at 10:03 am
He doesn’t have to list them all. With Letterman gone, I’d settle for a “Top 10” list. Well, maybe just a “Top 5”. Ok, 3.
May 28th, 2015 at 10:27 am
Liberals justify every petty tyranny by “it’s for the children.”
Cops justify every petty tyranny by “it’s for officer safety.”
Society has mostly learned it’s okay to snort derisively when Liberals trot out that lame excuse. We must learn to do the same for cops.
May 28th, 2015 at 10:33 am
While I certainly get that if I have to wear a seat belt, a cop should….naw, scratch that…repeal the seat belt law…problem solved.
But in this case, Mitch, I believe your use of the terms “video activist” and “pain in the ass” to be completely redundant.
The article quoted him as saying he didn’t want to spend his Memorial Day weekend in jail. Not quite certain why. Seems this idiot has FAR too much time on his hands.
May 28th, 2015 at 12:33 pm
The filmer might be annoying, but is he right? At the very least, we see that cops know absolutely nothing about real estate law. The sidewalk is within the street right-of-way, which is expressly for public use. The land the jail sit on is owned by the government, which makes it public property. If cops are that ignorant about basic legal concepts, what else don’t they know about the law they’re supposed to be competent to enforce?
May 29th, 2015 at 11:17 am
That a cop could possibly say that the sidewalk was private property is incredibly stupid. And we know that ignorance is no excuse.
Even if the true property line extended to the curb, 1) clearly, a public easement has been established with the sidewalk, and 2) it is a public building, so citizens are allowed to approach the building. Citizens have to enter the building to conduct all sorts of business with the city police department, such as getting a permit to purchase a firearm. So it is not the county jail, which is next door.