Comments on: Baltimore police can't arrest people who record them, so they bust them for "loitering" instead

By: marilove

marilove — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:48:00 +0000

Nope. I value freedom. Don’t you?

By: realityhater

realityhater — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:22:00 +0000

I took a look at the photos and have a few comments , problem#1 they are for the most part staged photos.. . Take a good look at picture # 8 with the caption “officers update their memo book to make sure all 3 accounts match November 2008 ” ahh isn’t that conspiracy ??? I mean shouldn’t all 3 accounts already match ? and just how are they correcting them to match ? – yeah he is an ARTIST alright…

By: realityhater

realityhater — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:59:00 +0000

Why would you side with the “thugs with a badge” ? I have yet to see one of these videos , that did not portray the offending officer in his or her true element – do what I say regardless or you will go to jail ,even if I have to make shit up to put you there! – in other words you will be forced to “respect my authority”…..not saying there are no good police officers , just saying there are plenty that tarnish the badge they wear ! Which brings me back to.. If you are doing nothing wrong , you should have no worries being caught on video.If you are walking the fine line between right and wrong well just confiscate the evidence and arrest the perp for loitering……….

By: adrianm

adrianm — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 07:44:00 +0000

Easy to “have a way with words” when you’re right!

By: Jason Lewis

Jason Lewis — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:14:00 +0000

Oh, right, because the cops never shoot you for brandishing a wallet here…

By: zombiebob

zombiebob — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:30:00 +0000

It was missing the proper level of inferred snark or emoticon. Sometimes using the words ‘realllly’ or ‘clearly’ or ‘Come Now!’ conveys sarcasm properly.

By: OoerictoO

OoerictoO — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:29:00 +0000

are you saying the US looks worse than the UK with respect to freedoms? in response to a police abuse article? are you serious?

oh, but you are right about the “nonsense about freedom that has been peddled”. we should just all give up. ;-)

By: Guest

Guest — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:26:00 +0000

another reason might be that too many of the people who see it clearest are more interesting in counting than fighting back?

By: OoerictoO

OoerictoO — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:24:00 +0000

that’s possibly one reason they remain lost

By: OoerictoO

OoerictoO — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:20:00 +0000

the terminally cowed should reference the MOVING PICTURES in the article to which they are replying…

By: Desnee Flakes

Desnee Flakes — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:25:00 +0000

Or the legal definition defines loitering differently. You are aware that words can have more than 1 meaning and having read the legal definition above the dictionary definition is too broad to use in law. Taking your definition the police could be arresting people for not walking briskly enough. I don’t think that would be practical, but I know there are Law & Order freaks who love the law until it stops working for them.

By: Desnee Flakes

Desnee Flakes — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:19:00 +0000

Now if you could just draw pictures to go with that brilliant explanation maybe the terminally cowed would understand the point. Until then just be satisfied that your point wasn’t lost on all of us.

By: Desnee Flakes

Desnee Flakes — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:14:00 +0000

It seems that at this point you are loitering and disturbing the peace. Where is a Baltimore cop when you need one?

By: Jeremy Slawson

Jeremy Slawson — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:01:00 +0000

This is becoming almost laughable. Each day there is one more news story that makes the US look no better than China or the old Soviet Union from the UK. How can we have been so blind to this nonsense about freedom that has been peddled for the last half century or more.

By: DavidN6

DavidN6 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:19:00 +0000

Sorry, not clear – sarcasm.

By: Dylan Wilson

Dylan Wilson — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:52:00 +0000

Normally I side with cops on these types of videos but this really pissed me off.

By: Jeremy Nicoll

Jeremy Nicoll — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:20:00 +0000

Only when I see stupid comments like some that I see here. But my sense of what’s fair and practical always seems to get in the way of such wishes.

By: zombiebob

zombiebob — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:59:00 +0000

Ok, so basically, what you are saying is that it is more important to stop someone recording than it is to secure a suspect? Seriously, that’s your argument?

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:07:00 +0000

Don’t you wish it was?

By: realityhater

realityhater — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:18:00 +0000

Imagine that a “loophole” in the law , I guess they really do exist… Thanks Baltimore PD, for giving every other police department another excuse to arrest or otherwise detain citizens with cell phones. Bringing us all one step closer to the police state we all love and trust right? …right ?/

By: DavidN6

DavidN6 — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:25:00 +0000

But that guy on the ground was definitely loitering.

By: cscalfani

cscalfani — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:59:00 +0000

Loitering is what I like to call a Gateway Law. It’s a law that’s on the books that no one complains about, but is used as a gateway to seize your civil liberties.

Want to pull someone over because you don’t like their bumper sticker, no need to have probably cause, simply pull them over for not wearing their seat belt (another gateway law) or talking on their cell phone (gateway). It won’t matter that it’s clear that they’re wearing their seat belt and/or they weren’t talking on their phone when you get to the window, because then you can detain them for appearing to be impaired, possibly high on drugs, which now gives you cause to search their car.

By: Warren_Terra

Warren_Terra — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:47:00 +0000

Sorry for the recursion, but under the circumstances the definition of “harass” seems to be important (as we can assume he wasn’t interfering with passage, physically obstructing, or threatening a breach of the peace); any guidance?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:37:00 +0000

You’re very compromising.

By: Mike Hayward

Mike Hayward — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:27:00 +0000

Where can I get an online journalist I.D.?
(i.e., “Hey, I’m not loitering. I’m a freelance journalist working for _____ _________. See? Here’s my I.D. Now please leave me alone and let me do my job.”

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:19:00 +0000

I’m not into the anthropological analysis of lost freedoms. I’m content enough with the qualitative analysis.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:19:00 +0000

i consider that intent to loiter

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:13:00 +0000

you can beat the charge, but you can’t beat the ride.

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:13:00 +0000

Of course the police union says their members didn’t do anything wrong. When’s the last time you’ve heard of cops doing anything about other cops misbehaving?

By: Guest

Guest — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:11:00 +0000

Loitering is defined as “interfering with the lawful use of public spaces” or something like that. So technically standing there isn’t loitering, but the cops know that a threat of arrest, even unlawful, is enough to deter most people who won’t be able to afford to fight it out in court.