View Full Version : Be Careful Of Your Movie Collection!
This post is not about LEO's making a mistake or whatever. It just goes to show you how far an attorney will go to paint you as the bad guy. Being an Oregonian for 30+ years, I never would have thought how chickenshit we've become. http://www.katu.com/news/local/City-to-pay-man-250000-after-police-mistake-him-as-a-tagger-149012465.html
Moose-Knuckle
04-26-12, 17:57
During the trial, the city's attorney tried to use Halsted's classic kung fu film collection against him, saying it proved he was violent. But Halsted is a film collector who works at the Hollywood Theater and said the whole thing completely changed his trust in police and how they use force.
The thought police strike again!
Can you imagine if he was stopped in a car with an NRA sticker? Or what if he had a GLOCK t-shirt on?
My movie collection alone well get me detained indefinitely under the NDAA. Red Dawn, The Patriot, Braveheart et al. will get me flagged as a subversive agent of chaos. :suicide:
I hope they don't find my Magpul training vids. :D
Nevermind, I'm riding the short bus today..
Voodoo_Man
04-26-12, 18:47
Sounds like typical defense/money grabber tactics.
I personally love it when people give the "I didn't know what was going on so I ran because I scared!" Yes, you ran because you were scared of the fully marked police cars and fully uniformed police officers, that is very believable.
This is the part we're most concerned about, Voodoo:
During the trial, the city's attorney tried to use Halsted's classic kung fu film collection against him, saying it proved he was violent.
It's frightening to see the side of the law be the ones to use such faulty logic and FUD.
The_War_Wagon
04-26-12, 19:45
OH NOES! Time to hide my MST3K DVDs! :rolleyes:
Voodoo_Man
04-26-12, 19:47
This is the part we're most concerned about, Voodoo:
It's frightening to see the side of the law be the ones to use such faulty logic and FUD.
Like I said its typical defense tactics.
They will do everything and anything, say everything they can - especially about police officers in order to get the result they want. The point of a defense attorney is to depict the witnesses and obstruct the facts as much as possible. I have testified in well over a few dozen jury trials and each one of them ended with a defense closing statement of how much the police lied, made shit up and targeted his "client."
The jury eats that stuff up, that is why they do it. Think it would work on a bench only trial? Hell no.
Hmmm... I wonder if my "Bambi", "Free Willy", Lassie Come Home", collection will cancel out my WWII Classics, "Psycho", Modern Warfare collection? "Old Yeller" should swing the balance in my favor,right? Oh Shit, just remembered, boy shoots dog at the end. I'm totally screwed. :laugh:
PdxMotoxer
04-26-12, 20:13
Also being an Oregonian for last 40+ years i'm very familiar with this story.
And RESPECTING this forums ZERO tolerance to L.E.O. posts and topic's I'll only base my reply on the "City's attorney" Actions and tactic's they TRIED to use and bring to light his "Kung-Fu" movie collection as if to prove he was a "violent" person.
:lol:
At what they would think of mine!! I also LOVE some of the old classic kung-fu and even the "spaghetti western" cheap/cheezy ones with TONs of blood :ph34r: and so poorly made they are just awesome!!
But what i laugh about is i mostly collect Horror flicks.. some "classic" but like all the SAW movies, Hostel, and ones with "gore"
Throw in Se7en, and one of my FAVS!! The Collector!
And that "city attorney" would have a field day with mine.
and i'd be locked up Dr Hannibal Lecter style :laugh:
I just remember watching this on the news and thinking... how do they even know that some of those flix were not just "gift's" or grabbed from a garage sale for $1 per DvD????
Seemed pretty lame tactic to try and blame a victim of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and a VERY overzealous officer.
*****not to Hi-jack but something to share*****
*If you like movies like the first 2 maybe 3rd Saw's and never seen "The Collector" it MAY be one you would enjoy!! i didn't think i would but i did very much so. and YMMV*
**If you like the old poorly dubbed kung-fu classic's then there is a newer one that isn't dubbed and IF you can handle Sub-Titles "13 Assassins" wasn't the BEST but it was pretty good with GREAT story.. for a "spaghetti western".. again YMMV**
madisonsfinest
04-26-12, 20:20
I'm curious how they even knew what his movie collection was. If he was walking outside and taken into custody there, how did they end up inside his house?
I'm curious how they even knew what his movie collection was. If he was walking outside and taken into custody there, how did they end up inside his house?
Just a wild ass guess, maybe a search warrant to find spray paint cans that he allegedly used to "tag" a building. But then again would they list
"violent" material on a warrant? Oh well, my intent for the post was to show an example of how evidence that we would assume to have no bearing on a persons actions or character would be used against you in a court of law. Desperate people use desperate actions.
Sounds like typical defense/money grabber tactics.
I personally love it when people give the "I didn't know what was going on so I ran because I scared!" Yes, you ran because you were scared of the fully marked police cars and fully uniformed police officers, that is very believable.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
His explanation is much more reasonable and probable explanation than yours.
--
Voodoo_Man
04-26-12, 20:58
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
His explanation is much more reasonable and probably explanation than yours.
--
I will take your post as sarcasm unless stated otherwise ;)
QuickStrike
04-26-12, 22:56
I've got Marty Stouffer's wild america, unsolved mysteries, and lots of spongebob.
They'll never suspect a thing. B)
Edit: Crap I forgot about the 40 or so prideFC/mma dvds and the crappy cthulu flick...
Come on guy's, its not a game of checkers, regardless of whose side you're drawn towards, if it was your attorney, you'd want him kicking ass and taking no prisoners in the process...:dance3:
Voodoo_Man
04-26-12, 23:15
Come on guy's, its not a game of checkers, regardless of whose side you're drawn towards, if it was your attorney, you'd want him kicking ass and taking no prisoners in the process...:dance3:
How do you know a lawyer is lying?
His lips are moving.
This is the part we're most concerned about, Voodoo:
It's frightening to see the side of the law be the ones to use such faulty logic and FUD.
Like I said its typical defense tactics.
They will do everything and anything, say everything they can - especially about police officers in order to get the result they want. The point of a defense attorney is to depict the witnesses and obstruct the facts as much as possible. I have testified in well over a few dozen jury trials and each one of them ended with a defense closing statement of how much the police lied, made shit up and targeted his "client."
The jury eats that stuff up, that is why they do it. Think it would work on a bench only trial? Hell no.
You're still missing the point I think. The article says that the city attorney tried to use the person's movie collection to prove he was violent. Whether you believe the guy or not about not knowing it was the police or why he ran isn't relevant to what the OP's talking about. How is the city attorney trying to use something against this guy "typical defense tactics"?
Voodoo_Man
04-27-12, 13:19
You're still missing the point I think. The article says that the city attorney tried to use the person's movie collection to prove he was violent. Whether you believe the guy or not about not knowing it was the police or why he ran isn't relevant to what the OP's talking about. How is the city attorney trying to use something against this guy "typical defense tactics"?
No one is missing any points. Everything stated goes hand in hand with each other.
When a person is arrested, or brought into court any lawyer worth his weight will run a check on that person and use every means possible to do so. The OP stated about how far a prosecutor (a lawyer) will go to prove his case, and everything which was posted is consistent with the OP.
I am going to restate my previous posts here, since they were misunderstood. If you were arrested for drug possession and your name was searched through google, yielding photographs of you in your facebook, twitter or a 420forums post showing off your fresh "bud" or showing pictures of you smoking it, posing with marijuana or posting information on how to properly cultivate marijuana, would this not be good evidence to take to court against you?
How about a violent crime? A person is arrested of a violent assault or shooting, would their internet-based/posted information not be worth skimming through in order to "prove" a specific sides (prosecution or defense) case?
The article/situation the OP posted is not a far stretch, you have to expect this, hence why it is not a surprise and is "typical defense tactics" as well as "typical prosecution tactics."
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-27-12, 14:06
The article/situation the OP posted is not a far stretch, you have to expect this, hence why it is not a surprise and is "typical defense tactics" as well as "typical prosecution tactics."
This story scares me. You scare me. If this doesnt anger you, and you are a police officer, then that scares me. Whatever, Im just a lowly subject of my masters.
Voodoo_Man
04-27-12, 14:09
This story scares me. You scare me. If this doesnt anger you, and you are a police officer, then that scares me. Whatever, Im just a lowly subject of my masters.
When I first got on the job and was told "you no longer have the same amount of rights you did yesterday." That made me upset, slightly. I knew what I was getting into.
As a LEO, my rights are very limited, especially in the 1st amendment category. Anything I say will be used against me at all opportunities - main reason why I do not have a FB, Twitter or whatever. On forums its very difficult to prove you are who I think you are unless you post your information on here, private forums are best since they require vetting in order to gain access - meaning all conversation is private and not public.
Just expect it, is all I am saying. If you post something online, have the knowledge and expectation that it will be used against you in a court of law.
edit; There is no limit to the information which can be used in court, if it is public information, private information is different (slightly and varies on states).
Moose-Knuckle
04-27-12, 15:26
edit; There is no limit to the information which can be used in court, if it is public information, private information is different (slightly and varies on states).
So a guy who is suspected of "tagging" can get arrested on the street, taken to jail, and some how his private DVD collection at his house is incriminating evidence used against him in a graffiti case. . .:confused:
Had he had a pornographic DVD collection what would have been the argument? That he is a sexaul predator?
Voodoo_Man
04-27-12, 16:00
So a guy who is suspected of "tagging" can get arrested on the street, taken to jail, and some how his private DVD collection at his house is incriminating evidence used against him in a graffiti case. . .:confused:
Had he had a pornographic DVD collection what would have been the argument? That he is a sexaul predator?
I have no idea how the information got to the lawyer, nor do I care to speculate. Until the exact source of the information is provided no one will know. I merely gave specific instances and circumstances where information may be used.
Speculating, of course, if he had a pornographic DVD collection and was arrested for some sort of sexually explicit act then a search warrant (for whatever reason) showed that collection then it may very well be raised in court.
TriumphRat675
04-27-12, 16:11
"'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 401.
This is a generally accepted rule throughout the US.
I would bet that in the civil lawsuit that the "tagger" brought against the city, the city attorney asked, during discovery, about violent movies, etc.
Since the city attorney would be trying to prove that the cops' actions were justified, whether or not the "tagger" was violent or resisted violently could well be a fact of consequence to the determination of the action.
Whether he loves kung-fu, owns firearms, boxes, or punches kittens recreationally are all things that could make that fact more or less probable.
This is standard litigation fare and not a sign of the apocalypse.
Moose-Knuckle
04-27-12, 17:20
"'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Tex. R. Evid. 401.
This is a generally accepted rule throughout the US.
I would bet that in the civil lawsuit that the "tagger" brought against the city, the city attorney asked, during discovery, about violent movies, etc.
Since the city attorney would be trying to prove that the cops' actions were justified, whether or not the "tagger" was violent or resisted violently could well be a fact of consequence to the determination of the action.
Whether he loves kung-fu, owns firearms, boxes, or punches kittens recreationally are all things that could make that fact more or less probable.
This is standard litigation fare and not a sign of the apocalypse.
Thanks for the education, this is probably the best post in this thread explaining the reasoning for the city attorneys claims, outlandish as they may be.
Sounds like typical defense/money grabber tactics.
I personally love it when people give the "I didn't know what was going on so I ran because I scared!" Yes, you ran because you were scared of the fully marked police cars and fully uniformed police officers, that is very believable.
yes it does BUT !!!
were you there ? and saw this ?
with a brother who is a prosecutor usually its like you say but not always !
that is why its innocent till proven guilty !
I love it when people always give the typical guilty till proven innocent scenario !!!!
sadly many cops have this I am going to get you attitude and you are guilty cause I say so !
yeah running from a cop is not good ! but at the same time when cops are perfect I will take your side ! until then sorry you are no different than anyone else in my book and make mistakes !!!!
No one is missing any points. Everything stated goes hand in hand with each other.
When a person is arrested, or brought into court any lawyer worth his weight will run a check on that person and use every means possible to do so. The OP stated about how far a prosecutor (a lawyer) will go to prove his case, and everything which was posted is consistent with the OP.
I am going to restate my previous posts here, since they were misunderstood. If you were arrested for drug possession and your name was searched through google, yielding photographs of you in your facebook, twitter or a 420forums post showing off your fresh "bud" or showing pictures of you smoking it, posing with marijuana or posting information on how to properly cultivate marijuana, would this not be good evidence to take to court against you?
How about a violent crime? A person is arrested of a violent assault or shooting, would their internet-based/posted information not be worth skimming through in order to "prove" a specific sides (prosecution or defense) case?
The article/situation the OP posted is not a far stretch, you have to expect this, hence why it is not a surprise and is "typical defense tactics" as well as "typical prosecution tactics."
and what if you were just walking home ? they found nothing so decided to use your movie collection ?
to me seems like they would have been able to use spray paint cans ? photos of his art work ? photos of his tags he has done ?
really this does sound like a case of police over stepping and making a big mistake and not just owning up to it !
again I could be wrong as you could
unless you were the office or were a witness ?
how do you know for sure it was not wrong ?
police are people and people make mistakes
yes like you say if the guy was a pot head doing something related ? but he wasnt ? if all they could bring forward was his movie collection ? that to me really shows they were grabbing at straws big time
Voodoo_Man
04-28-12, 14:54
Your comments are all over the place and would take me too long to respond to as I have already made my point.
Your comments are all over the place and would take me too long to respond to as I have already made my point.
Regardless of Honu's grammatical issues, you are flat out wrong for finding any sort of justification for what happened to that man. To think that they used those old collectible movies against him to support a blatantly false charge is flat out disgraceful and you should be distancing yourself from the travesty, not supporting it.
Suwannee Tim
04-28-12, 20:46
If I were sitting on a civil jury and the defendant's attorney attacked the plaintiff on the basis of his movie collection I would take it as an indication that the defense had a very, very weak case.
Heavy Metal
04-28-12, 21:15
If I were sitting on a civil jury and the defendant's attorney attacked the plaintiff on the basis of his movie collection I would take it as an indication that the defense had a very, very weak case.
If I were sitting on a Criminal Jury and the Prosecutor tried a stunt like that, he would lose much respect and perhaps the case.
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. Stick to the relevant facts of the case.
I don't like it, but I agree with Voodoo. This is no different than if the defense attorney were to try and use training videos or training logs to build a case of competence. Hopefully, the defense has a decent version of the truth, and did god job selecting jurors who won't think kung fu movies = violent predator.
I don't like it, but I agree with Voodoo. This is no different than if the defense attorney were to try and use training videos or training logs to build a case of competence.
No different? Really? Really?
:help:
ForTehNguyen
04-29-12, 09:34
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/407/wpidthoughtpolice.jpg
Voodoo_Man
04-29-12, 13:21
Regardless of Honu's grammatical issues, you are flat out wrong for finding any sort of justification for what happened to that man. To think that they used those old collectible movies against him to support a blatantly false charge is flat out disgraceful and you should be distancing yourself from the travesty, not supporting it.
What I stated is fact.
Do not like it? Change it, but do not post commenting on what I stated as if I had a hand in putting the charges together.
I shared my experience, if you want people to stop sharing their factual experience (which is backed up by other members here who share the same) then by all means keep posting your hateful bullshit.
...do not post commenting on what I stated as if I had a hand in putting the charges together.
Not what was stated or implied. The issue I have is that you, as a trusted enforcer of the law, don't see the whole thing as the drastic and immoral overreach that it was.
I shared my experience, if you want people to stop sharing their factual experience (which is backed up by other members here who share the same) then by all means keep posting your hateful bullshit.
I/we appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experiences with us. As far as my "hateful bullshit", not sure what you are referring to. If you think that because of my criticism of your take on the matter I am anti-LEO, then you have me very mistaken. It's about right and wrong, no hate or ideology involved here.
Voodoo_Man
04-29-12, 13:40
Not what was stated or implied. The issue I have is that you, as a trusted enforcer of the law, don't see the whole thing as the drastic and immoral overreach that it was.
I/we appreciate you sharing your knowledge and experiences with us. As far as my "hateful bullshit", not sure what you are referring to. If you think that because of my criticism of your take on the matter I am anti-LEO, then you have me very mistaken. It's about right and wrong, no hate or ideology involved here.
You expect me to sit here crying, complaining and condoning something that occurs every single day in court houses across the US? Sorry. That is called reality.
I had absolutely no hand in what happened to this guy. Guilty, innocent, whatever - none of that concerns me as I have no hand in it nor have I stated anything to anyone that would lead anyone to believe otherwise.
I did not respond to Honu's comments for the same reason, there are certain "givens" in threads like this that common sense would give big blinking lights to posters. Obviously I was not there, Obviously I do not know what really happened, Obviously neither do any of you here unless you have had a hand in that situation. I have, however, have been in such instances (such as those I posted) where similar circumstances occurred. In each of those circumstances (from my experience) it was perfectly acceptable to do what we did and I have yet to get sued or go to federal court over my actions. Thus your posts about it being disgraceful and that I need to distance myself from this is utter and pointless hateful bullshit.
You expect me to sit here crying, complaining and condoning something that occurs every single day in court houses across the US? Sorry. That is called reality.
A massive overstatement if there ever was one. I am not referring to a maniac who, let's say, posted his vehement dislike for women before being charged with rape. If the evidence is reasonable then by all means use it. But a collection of old karate movies being used to bolster a charge of spray painting is a whole different matter and I guess I hoped you would have distinguished that aspect. Unless you disagree, of course.
Thus your posts about it being disgraceful and that I need to distance myself from this is utter and pointless hateful bullshit.
I relent that I need not have stated your explanations as "disgraceful". Perhaps "shocking" or "disappointing" would have been better choices. Still, there was no implication of hate, and you attempting to portray me as some sort of hater because I disagreed with you is distortion of fact. Which leads us to the point of this thread...
Voodoo_Man
04-29-12, 14:11
I have made my point, any further conversation is just going to burn this thread with your out of context banter.
If you do not like what I said, say so, we are all big boys here. Do not sit there and attempt to tell anyone what they do for a living is wrong because it does not mesh with your personal agendas.
Do not sit there and attempt to tell anyone what they do for a living is wrong because it does not mesh with your personal agendas.
Your right, time to end our part here. But what you wrote above indicates exactly what I suspected you thought, which is that I am anti-LEO.
Again, you're wrong about that and make a mistake as a man, not as a police officer (or Trooper, if I recall correctly), jumping so hastily to that conclusion based upon my concern for the prosecution of that one particular case. I don't hate you, I disagree with you and fail to see what caused you to think otherwise.
Enjoy the rest of your afternoon and stay safe.
Voodoo_Man
04-29-12, 14:30
We will agree to disagree then.
Some issues will never bring two people eye to eye.
The_War_Wagon
04-29-12, 15:02
Edit: Crap I forgot about...the crappy cthulu flick...
Cloverfield? :p
QuickStrike
04-29-12, 21:24
Cloverfield? :p
Nah, Cloverfield was actually pretty decent overall.
I'm talking about this heaping pile:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1522262/
Cloverfield kicked ass. Still waiting on the inevitable sequel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.