Man Arrested For Shooting Photo Of Police Activity

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Funk, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. Bill Funk

    Bill Funk Guest

    Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    activity on his cellphone:
    http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    police have different stories (DUH!).

    I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    picture of police activity in plain sight.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Funk

    Celcius Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > police have different stories (DUH!).
    >
    > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > picture of police activity in plain sight.
    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"


    Bill,
    Big Brother is watching... ;-)
    Orwell might have been right after all.
    Take care,
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jul 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Funk

    J. Clarke Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:

    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law)


    This assumes that the reporter could actually identify the law--the
    Pennsylvania statutes are voluminous and finding things in them quickly
    requires special expertise. Further, it might be a city or local
    ordinance, so there's actually a good deal of research involved to do this,
    more than can reasonably be accomplished before deadline for any but
    possibly the largest news organizations.

    > ; the "witness"
    > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > police have different stories (DUH!).
    >
    > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > picture of police activity in plain sight.


    I suspect that the officer exceeded his authority. I also expect that since
    this has gotten national publicity something will be done about it.

    As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
    that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
    stand is another story.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill Funk

    Tom Williams Guest

    It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
    compromising, and embarrassing moments.

    Tom


    "Bill Funk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > police have different stories (DUH!).
    >
    > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > picture of police activity in plain sight.
    > --
    > Bill Funk
    > replace "g" with "a"
     
    Tom Williams, Jul 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill Funk

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
    >that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
    >stand is another story.


    It's far more complicated than that.
    Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
    vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
    concerned.
    I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
    excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 30, 2006
    #5
  6. Today, Celcius made these interesting comments ...

    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of
    >> police activity on his cellphone:
    >> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story;
    >> several things don't make sense, not least of which is the
    >> claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are
    >> two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There
    >> is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a
    >> competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    >> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the
    >> man and the police have different stories (DUH!).
    >>
    >> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from
    >> taking a picture of police activity in plain sight.


    > Big Brother is watching... ;-)
    > Orwell might have been right after all.
    > Take care,


    "Big Brother" has been watching since FISA was updated twice
    since 9/11, the 1947 NSA was updated at least twice since, all
    Federal intelligence and law enforcement activities were
    consolidated under Homeland Security, along with incorrectly
    bundling FEMA in, and finally, the Bill of Rights was abrogated,
    severely abridged, and the 4th Amendment basically destroyed by
    the Patriot Act, which turns out to be an acronym.

    Whether any of us agree with or disagree with the Bush
    Administration's stance on all of this, including the highly
    controversial "wire tapping" of American phone calls and the
    accusation that the NY Times violated the NSA by leaking the
    story about the USA monitoring foreign money transfers, it is
    quite clear that today's post-9/11 world is very different than
    it was prior to about 9:00AM on September 11, 2001.

    Over in alt.binaries.pictures.rail there was a very long, very
    contentious thread about whether a private company can or cannot
    confiscate picture you take of their rail yard from a public
    ridge, and the discussion drifted into whether photography on
    private property is or is not a protected "right". Well, not
    being a Constitutional law attorney, I am an engineer, I do not
    know the answer to these knotty questions of our time.

    But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with
    a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR
    where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if
    a private security guard take issue, your best course of action
    is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very
    contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent
    so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely
    come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as
    small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a
    police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a
    believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated,
    planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or
    execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack.

    The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to
    even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a
    common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or
    saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good
    example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise
    ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation.

    So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take
    pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified
    attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for
    state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through
    the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court,
    which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been
    during all of this over the last 4-5 years ...

    --
    HP, aka Jerry

    Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA)
    http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html
     
    HEMI - Powered, Jul 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Today, Bill Funk made these interesting comments ...

    >>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to
    >>happen is that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now,
    >>whether the courts let it stand is another story.

    >
    > It's far more complicated than that.
    > Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider
    > what his vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as
    > passing the bill is concerned.
    > I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out,
    > the excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


    Yeas and Nays in two Houses of Congress signify passage or defeat
    of a /bill/, not a law. It doesn't become a law until the
    executive signs it, whether a state governor or the president.
    But, you are entirely correct in that no one really knows what
    the new law does or does not say, exactly how it is applied and
    enforced, and whether it is constitutional or not until at least
    one case comes before a state or federal court. And, under the
    American justice system, a lower court ruling or even jury trial
    decision does not set a precedent. That takes a decision at least
    at the appellate court level or a state or Federal Supreme Court.

    And, laws can be challenged in the general case, individually,
    through certified classes, as in class-action suits, or when one
    side or the other in some controversy decide to go to court, of
    which being arrested is only one way.

    As to whether a police officer or someone higher in the police
    command structure did or did not exceed their authority would
    depend highly - and specifically - on what statute(s) were cited
    by the arresting office, the evidence they used, the degree of
    probably cause, and any potential conflicts between city,
    country, state, and Federal law, not to mention the various
    aspects of state and Federal constitutional law and the
    implementable portions of things like the Patriot Act.

    Now, back to the legislators. In a republic, which is what the
    United States is, it is /not/ a democracy, a legislator is not at
    all bound by his/her constutents to vote the way the people want
    or even the way the candidate said they would whilst running for
    office. Voters then have only two recourses: attempt to remove
    the legislator under appropriate law or congressional rules, or
    vote their ass out of office next election. In some cases, a
    recall election may be applicable, which is how Gov. Gray lost
    his job in Kalyfornia and Arnold Schwazenneger was elected a
    couple years ago.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry

    Member, Chrysler Employee Motorsport Association (CEMA)
    http://www.cemaclub.org/default.html
     
    HEMI - Powered, Jul 30, 2006
    #7
  8. Bill Funk

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Tom Williams <NeedToKnow?@askme.com> wrote:
    >It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
    >compromising, and embarrassing moments.


    Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security
    nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question
    (if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism
    activity secret.

    While that is laudable, I want my rights back.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 30, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill Funk

    Tom Williams Guest

    "Paul J Gans" <> wrote in message
    news:eaj1h2$1k6$...
    > Tom Williams <NeedToKnow?@askme.com> wrote:
    >>It's scare tactics, and intimidation. Too many cops have been caught in
    >>compromising, and embarrassing moments.

    >
    > Yeah, but it could also be more of the Homeland Security
    > nonsense we've seen in recent years. The law in question
    > (if it exists) might be designed to keep anti-terrorism
    > activity secret.
    >
    > While that is laudable, I want my rights back.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans


    I've only read about situations where people claim it's illegal to take
    pictures of this, or that. I haven't seen any laws that clearly spell that
    out, here in the U.S. As far as I know, taking pictures in public places is
    not against the law. Especially while standing on ones own property!

    Does any one have any links to such laws?

    Tom
     
    Tom Williams, Jul 30, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill Funk

    J. Clarke Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
    >>that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
    >>stand is another story.

    >
    > It's far more complicated than that.
    > Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
    > vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
    > concerned.


    How does that make it "more complicated" than a majority vote?

    > I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
    > excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Bill Funk

    J. Clarke Guest

    HEMI - Powered wrote:

    > Today, Celcius made these interesting comments ...
    >
    >> Bill Funk wrote:
    >>> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of
    >>> police activity on his cellphone:
    >>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html Read the story;
    >>> several things don't make sense, not least of which is the
    >>> claim that no supervisor was on duty. Of course, there are
    >>> two sides to every story, and this one is no exception. There
    >>> is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it exists (a
    >>> competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    >>> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the
    >>> man and the police have different stories (DUH!).
    >>>
    >>> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from
    >>> taking a picture of police activity in plain sight.

    >
    >> Big Brother is watching... ;-)
    >> Orwell might have been right after all.
    >> Take care,

    >
    > "Big Brother" has been watching since FISA was updated twice
    > since 9/11, the 1947 NSA was updated at least twice since, all
    > Federal intelligence and law enforcement activities were
    > consolidated under Homeland Security, along with incorrectly
    > bundling FEMA in, and finally, the Bill of Rights was abrogated,
    > severely abridged, and the 4th Amendment basically destroyed by
    > the Patriot Act, which turns out to be an acronym.
    >
    > Whether any of us agree with or disagree with the Bush
    > Administration's stance on all of this, including the highly
    > controversial "wire tapping" of American phone calls and the
    > accusation that the NY Times violated the NSA by leaking the
    > story about the USA monitoring foreign money transfers, it is
    > quite clear that today's post-9/11 world is very different than
    > it was prior to about 9:00AM on September 11, 2001.
    >
    > Over in alt.binaries.pictures.rail there was a very long, very
    > contentious thread about whether a private company can or cannot
    > confiscate picture you take of their rail yard from a public
    > ridge, and the discussion drifted into whether photography on
    > private property is or is not a protected "right". Well, not
    > being a Constitutional law attorney, I am an engineer, I do not
    > know the answer to these knotty questions of our time.


    The quick answer to that one is that if their guards can catch and overpower
    you then they can confiscate pictures you take, and your camera, and your
    clothing, and whatever parts of your body they see fit to remove. That is
    an entirely different issue from whether such an action is _lawful_.

    > But, I do know this: If you are accosted for doing something with
    > a camera of /any/ sort, cell phone, P & S, or sophisticated DSLR
    > where a legitimate law enforcment officer takes issue or even if
    > a private security guard take issue, your best course of action
    > is to immediately park your ego, stand down, get polite and very
    > contrite, and try to calm down the person accosting you. Absent
    > so really sincere humility, some amount of hassle will definitely
    > come your way, all the way to a police arrest for anything as
    > small as disturbing the peace, misdemeanor photography of a
    > police investigation, to felony obstruction of justice or a
    > believed attempt to contribute to the crime being investigated,
    > planning of a future crime, or the worst of all, the planning or
    > execution of a real or perceived terrorist attack.
    >
    > The latter is so ill-defined that it is difficult right now to
    > even talk about what does or does not constitute an "attack" by a
    > common citizen taking a picture with their cell phone camera or
    > saying something seemingly innocuos like "gee, here's a good
    > example of police brutality in progress!". And, I wouldn't advise
    > ya to yell "Big Brother!" if you are in a similar situation.
    >
    > So, as to whether it is or is not against the law to take
    > pictures of anything, including a police action, only a qualified
    > attorney can answer that, but likely, it will become a matter for
    > state or federal courts to decide and may wind its way through
    > the appellate court system all the way to the Supreme Court,
    > which really makes me wonder where the Hell the ACLU has been
    > during all of this over the last 4-5 years ...
    >


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 30, 2006
    #11
  12. Bill Funk

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <>,
    "J. Clarke" <> wrote:

    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:59:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>As to how there can be such a law, it's easy. All that has to happen is
    > >>that a majority of legislators vote "aye". Now, whether the courts let it
    > >>stand is another story.

    > >
    > > It's far more complicated than that.
    > > Just taking the vote by the legislators: each has to consider what his
    > > vote will mean to the voters, not just as far as passing the bill is
    > > concerned.

    >
    > How does that make it "more complicated" than a majority vote?
    >
    > > I do think the cop exceeded his authority; as I pointed out, the
    > > excuse that a super wasn't on duty is absurd.


    What Legislature?

    The laws that a city or town police enforce are Municipal ordinances.
    The laws State police enforce are state laws. The FBI and other Federal
    police enforce Federal laws. Sheriffs and Marshals have other
    regulations. Fire police enforce other regulations as do Park police.
    Then you have private police such as those on collage campuses.

    What one vote do you think would work? Remember - those powers not
    enforced by the Federal government are enforced by the states.

    Did you ever hear of a FBI agent or a Secret Service agent arresting
    someone for running a red light in your town?

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
     
    Bob Salomon, Jul 30, 2006
    #12
  13. Per HEMI - Powered:
    > misdemeanor photography of a
    >police investigation


    After all, we don't want any more of that Rodney King nonsense, do we? -)
    --
    PeteCresswell
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jul 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Bill Funk

    Jer Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > police have different stories (DUH!).
    >
    > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > picture of police activity in plain sight.



    I don't either, at least not one that would stand the constitutional
    test in court. All it takes is someone with the stones to push the
    issue high enough, or garner enough attention to get the ACLU's
    attention. Success would simply have the law stricken from the books.
    For the record, I've been known to snap a few when the opportunity
    presented itself, the cops knew it, and I've never been hassled about
    it. Then again, I wasn't in Philadelphia either.

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'
     
    Jer, Jul 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Bill Funk

    cjcampbell Guest

    Celcius wrote:
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    > > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > > activity on his cellphone:
    > > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > > police have different stories (DUH!).
    > >
    > > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > > picture of police activity in plain sight.
    > > --
    > > Bill Funk
    > > replace "g" with "a"

    >
    > Bill,
    > Big Brother is watching... ;-)
    > Orwell might have been right after all.


    Yeah. But we're the ones with the cameras. :) We ARE Big Brother!
     
    cjcampbell, Jul 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Bill Funk

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > police have different stories (DUH!).
    >
    > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > picture of police activity in plain sight.


    I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
    until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
    inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
    doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 31, 2006
    #16
  17. Bill Funk

    ljb Guest

    wrote:
    > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > activity on his cellphone:
    > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html


    Recommended reading for all photographers who might encounter this:
    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
    Click on the link for the downloadable flyer.
    Author is a lawyer, photographer, and advocate. With the usual disclaimers,
    he tries to explain the laws. Subtitled "Your rights and remedies when
    stopped or confronted for photography".
     
    ljb, Jul 31, 2006
    #17
  18. Bill Funk

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:18:43 -0000, HEMI - Powered wrote:

    > Yeas and Nays in two Houses of Congress signify passage or defeat
    > of a /bill/, not a law. It doesn't become a law until the
    > executive signs it, whether a state governor or the president.
    > But, you are entirely correct in that no one really knows what
    > the new law does or does not say, exactly how it is applied and
    > enforced, and whether it is constitutional or not until at least
    > one case comes before a state or federal court.


    And that's not even taking into consideration presidential signing
    statements, suddenly become numerous, and intentionally (and rather
    clandestinely) used to undermine the bill-become-law just after
    being signed.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 31, 2006
    #18
  19. Bill Funk

    cjcampbell Guest

    Ron Hunter wrote:
    > Bill Funk wrote:
    > > Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    > > activity on his cellphone:
    > > http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    > > Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    > > the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    > > Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    > > exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    > > exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    > > evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    > > police have different stories (DUH!).
    > >
    > > I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    > > picture of police activity in plain sight.

    >
    > I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
    > until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
    > inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
    > doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.


    But it does not keep a photographer from suing or charging police with
    conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights.
     
    cjcampbell, Jul 31, 2006
    #19
  20. Bill Funk

    Ron Hunter Guest

    cjcampbell wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >> Bill Funk wrote:
    >>> Here's a story about a man arrested for tasking a picture of police
    >>> activity on his cellphone:
    >>> http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html
    >>> Read the story; several things don't make sense, not least of which is
    >>> the claim that no supervisor was on duty.
    >>> Of course, there are two sides to every story, and this one is no
    >>> exception. There is no reference to the 'new law' except to say it
    >>> exists (a competent reporter would have cited the law); the "witness"
    >>> evidently didn't actually see the picture being taken; the man and the
    >>> police have different stories (DUH!).
    >>>
    >>> I don't see how there can be a law forbidding a person from taking a
    >>> picture of police activity in plain sight.

    >> I doubt such a law would stand a constitutional test, but it could stand
    >> until a judge tossed it out, which might be long after you were
    >> inconvenienced, or fined, for it. Generally, any citizen activity that
    >> doesn't interfere with the police doing their job would be allowed.

    >
    > But it does not keep a photographer from suing or charging police with
    > conspiracy to deprive him of his civil rights.
    >

    NO. You can challenge ANY law in court on grounds of constitutionality.
    However, to so, you need to have someone brave enough to break that
    law, and suffer the consequences.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jul 31, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin

    Tried to help, nearly got arrested

    Kevin, Jul 21, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    479
    Matt Gibson
    Jul 24, 2005
  2. JohnCM
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    654
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,150
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. WeReo_BoY
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    915
    WeReo_BoY
    Jan 4, 2011
  5. richard
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    860
    Aardvark
    Jan 4, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page