'Video Vigilante' Arrested After Filming a Hospital's Emergency Ramp (bostonherald.com) 225
The Boston Herald writes that a "video vigilante faces numerous charges after being arrested outside Massachusetts General Hospital where police say he was recording the emergency ramp at the height of the coronavirus pandemic." schwit1 shares their report:
John L. McCullough, 41, was charged with trespassing, disturbing the peace and threats to do bodily harm after police say he refused to stop recording Sunday evening. "I informed him that I could not make him stop filming but I asked him to stop out of respect to patient privacy," the arresting officer wrote in a police report obtained by the Herald through a public records request.
The next day the newspaper's senior editor posted a follow-up: John L. McCullough told the Herald Tuesday evening he is a First Amendment crusader who takes videos of police and posts them to YouTube. That's what got him a June 2 arraignment date. "I understand how people may feel, but that doesn't mean I should be locked up," McCullough said... "Did I break the law? No. I may have been rude," he added. "I understand people may feel jittery, but where peoples' feelings start my rights don't stop...."
Cambridge civil-rights attorney Harvey Silverglate said McCullough will probably have his case tossed, even if what he was doing is seen as crass. "There's no amendment in the Constitution called the humanity amendment," said Silverglate. "It's a free country and you have a right to be a jerk." But taking video outside a hospital during a pandemic and as people try to social distance — and first responders, including the police, face all-too-real health risks — is "pretty distasteful," Silverglate added.
Still, he added the judge will "have to throw it out." He added it's "punishment itself" to go to court in this climate. McCullough, records state, does not have an attorney yet. He did say he's ready to plead his case. "Don't be brainwashed," he added, "and it shouldn't be a problem when a black man has a camera."
The Herald suggests one more interesting detail. "McCullough said '20 other cameras' were probably rolling at the same time as he was — alluding to security cameras in the area."
The next day the newspaper's senior editor posted a follow-up: John L. McCullough told the Herald Tuesday evening he is a First Amendment crusader who takes videos of police and posts them to YouTube. That's what got him a June 2 arraignment date. "I understand how people may feel, but that doesn't mean I should be locked up," McCullough said... "Did I break the law? No. I may have been rude," he added. "I understand people may feel jittery, but where peoples' feelings start my rights don't stop...."
Cambridge civil-rights attorney Harvey Silverglate said McCullough will probably have his case tossed, even if what he was doing is seen as crass. "There's no amendment in the Constitution called the humanity amendment," said Silverglate. "It's a free country and you have a right to be a jerk." But taking video outside a hospital during a pandemic and as people try to social distance — and first responders, including the police, face all-too-real health risks — is "pretty distasteful," Silverglate added.
Still, he added the judge will "have to throw it out." He added it's "punishment itself" to go to court in this climate. McCullough, records state, does not have an attorney yet. He did say he's ready to plead his case. "Don't be brainwashed," he added, "and it shouldn't be a problem when a black man has a camera."
The Herald suggests one more interesting detail. "McCullough said '20 other cameras' were probably rolling at the same time as he was — alluding to security cameras in the area."
Won't go nowhere (Score:5, Informative)
It is not a lawful arrest, the charges are trumped up, he'll get 1000$ a minute of arrest from the community like all the others before and if the judge is fair, maybe some cops would lose their qualified immunity and they'd have to pay those damages from their own pocket instead of the taxpayer's dime.
He has everything on video maybe streamed live, even the cop's confession that he isn't breaking any law... the guy will get millions of Youtube hits.
To get accused of trespassing you have to get officially trespassed, then leave the property and come back uninvited.
As for 'disturbing the peace' the guy stands quietly there filming, it's other people and the cops who make a riot and it's all on video.
And the 'video vigilante' is a member of the free press, like we all are.
The times where you had to buy a newspaper are over.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And is that the basis on which the gawker case was decided?
(Spoiler: No)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I only read half the first sentence.
Don't waste your time spewing bullshit.
You're quoting a media report about the case, you're not quoting the decision. The subject of your post is "opinions of some guy" not "the basis on which the case was decided."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not the press can violate your privacy hinges on if what they're reporting is a newsworthy event [dmlp.org].
Re: (Score:2)
But if the arrest was in good faith then yes, it's lawful and no, he wont get compensation.
It's hard to believe that a police officer is not aware of the Consitutional rights of citizens in circumstances such as these that have been adjudicated thousands of times all over the country. He was being a dick and should be held accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
I disapprove your jerkish behaviour, but I will defend to the death your right behave like a jerk.
Re: (Score:2)
As Evelyn Beatrice Hall almost said:
I disapprove your jerkish behaviour, but I will defend to the death your right behave like a jerk.
Well, no, slow down there, Cowboy.
Your jerkish speech is protected, no other aspects of your jerkish behavior are.
If you're going to defend to the death people right to behave you're in for a big surprise how many different jerk things people do that you'll have to die for.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mods, please see the other comments that quote the law before deciding how to mod!
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only he actually WENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
He was on a city-owned sidewalk that parallels a public road. The sidewalk doesn't exist for just them, and it doesn't stop at the edge of the hospital, it is not contained on hospital grounds, It parallels the road itself, and is a public sidewalk.
It was public. Don't like it? Too bad, the guy is going to win a fortune from your taxes because his rights were actually violated. He filmed, IN PUBLIC, from a PUBLIC sidewalk (there is such a thing as a private sidew
Re: (Score:2)
Both the street and side walk are owned by Harvard university. They are on private property not owned nor maintained by the city.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both private ways owned by the hospital which are trivially verified.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
The city disagrees with you, and you're clearly just a liar.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Rei: The law probably differs from area to area, but where I live (TX), a trespass complaint is not actionable by police unless someone has returned to your property, and been seen by a cop doing so, after having previously received a verbal trespass warning from the property owner/caretaker, also witnessed by a cop. For first-time complaints, all cops can do is have a chat with the offender. And "No Trespassing" signs are not enforceable. They're merely suggestions. You can sign a waiver which allows cops,
Penal Code Section 30.05 (Score:3)
Texas Penal Code Section 30.05, criminal trespass:
the person enters or remains on or in property of another;
without effective consent and the person;
and
when the person had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do so.
"Remains on the property ... received notice to depart but failed to do so."
Massachusetts law, which applies in this case, is virtually identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, and he was on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, paralleling a PUBLIC WAY.
I walk down that sidewalk many times a day. The felonmusk idiot saying it's private clearly doesn't even live here.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both private ways. I will shut the fuck up Now and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trespassing because a private entity tells you to leave a PUBLIC SIDEWALK RUNNING PARALLEL TO A PUBLIC WAY?
By that logic, the next time you step out of your house and onto the sidewalk running parallel to your road, I want you arrested for trespassing on my property.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. They street and side walk are private roads on private property owned by Harvard not the city of Boston.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
I applaud your efforts, but why lie about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both Not public ways.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're wrong on so many levels. First, even if the arrest were illegal, there's no way he gets compensated for it. For that to happen, the officer would have had to know he was in the wrong when it was happening and do it anyway. Second, just about every state forbids recording at medical facilities, inside and out. Third, trespassing happens when you refuse to leave. He refused to leave, therefore he trespassed. Some other guy is claiming that Mass. is different and requires you to return after being kicke
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To get accused of trespassing you have to get officially trespassed, then leave the property and come back uninvited.
Citation needed. At face value, that seems silly.
"Officer this person won't leave my property."
"Sorry I can't charge him with tresspass until he leaves and comes back."
As for 'disturbing the peace' the guy stands quietly there filming, it's other people and the cops who make a riot and it's all on video.
From the summary and the article, "threats to do bodily harm" and "yelling" does not seem that they were "quietly" filming. The article gives more detail that the person made threats. Now we'll have to see what threats were made, but that it seems you want to ignore facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to expand on this a little, in general these types of "disturbing the peace" or "criminal mischief" laws (often the same thing) generally make it a crime to make statements intended to alarm the public.
Freedom of speech isn't actually phrased in the 1st Amendment in a way to make it broadly apply to communication; the Courts have extended it to other communications because since some speech is a basic right it shouldn't be taken away unless necessary to balance another right or civic interest. What the
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't even have call him a jerk, I wouldn't mind having some video footage of the last time I ended up in hospital after an accident. The news record footage of people after accidents and incidents all the time, do we all rage and call them jerks? No, very selective that. I hope he gets compensation.
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:5, Informative)
The law says no such thing. The relevant statute is here [malegislature.gov], and I quote in full:
Section 120: Entry upon private property after being forbidden as trespass; prima facie evidence; penalties; arrest; tenants or occupants excepted Section 120. Whoever, without right enters or remains in or upon the dwelling house, buildings, boats or improved or enclosed land, wharf, or pier of another, or enters or remains in a school bus, as defined in section 1 of chapter 90, after having been forbidden so to do by the person who has lawful control of said premises, whether directly or by notice posted thereon, or in violation of a court order pursuant to section thirty-four B of chapter two hundred and eight or section three or four of chapter two hundred and nine A, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days or both such fine and imprisonment. Proof that a court has given notice of such a court order to the alleged offender shall be prima facie evidence that the notice requirement of this section has been met. A person who is found committing such trespass may be arrested by a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable or police officer and kept in custody in a convenient place, not more than twenty-four hours, Sunday excepted, until a complaint can be made against him for the offence, and he be taken upon a warrant issued upon such complaint. This section shall not apply to tenants or occupants of residential premises who, having rightfully entered said premises at the commencement of the tenancy or occupancy, remain therein after such tenancy or occupancy has been or is alleged to have been terminated. The owner or landlord of said premises may recover possession thereof only through appropriate civil proceedings.
All that is required is notification.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's reasonable to argue that the police don't have lawful control of the property, since the property owner has every right to kick them out, too, and require a warrant to come back. And, the statute doesn't provide any means of delegating that authority to another person.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
That sidewalk abuts a public way. It is a public sidewalk, on City property.
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
Re: (Score:3)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both private ways.
Fixed that for you.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:4, Informative)
Not the public sidewalk owned by the city, abutting a public way.
The sidewalk isn't contained within the property. This is the sidewalk to walk in front of the hospital's sally port. You'd be physically walking in the street if you didnt use the PUBLIC sidewalk that runs parallel to the PUBLIC road and hospital.
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:4, Informative)
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he was on a public sidewalk, not actually private property, and kicking him off that spot seems flatly unconstitutional.
That's the public sidewalk that parallels the public road. Should everyone jaywalk now?
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
You're pretty stupid for a troll. AI chatbot?
Re: (Score:3)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both private ways owned by t hospital.
Fixed that for you.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
There are owned by Harvard university NOT the city of Boston.
Massachusetts General Hospital is owned by Partners Healthcare. Even though it's a Harvard teaching hospital, I'm not aware of Harvard University having any kind of ownership in Partners.
Re:He violated HIPPA. (Score:5, Informative)
He is not a health provider, a hospital employee, nor does he work for a health insurance company or healthcare clearinghouse. He did not violate HIPAA [hipaajournal.com].
"It's a free country and you have a right to be a jerk."
This is one of the most important rights that we have as Americans. The police had no authority to ask him to stop filming, and admit as much.
But my word this dude is a total asshat of a jerk. All of us have the right to point that out.
Re: (Score:2)
The police had no authority to ask him to stop filming, and admit as much.
But my word this dude is a total asshat of a jerk. All of us have the right to point that out.
I hate to be the pedantic jerk.. Oh who am I kidding. The police have all the authority in the world to ASK him to stop filming. Just like they have all the authority to start asking random people on the street questions. They have may not have authority to order him to stop filming, or to arrest him for refusing the request. Just like the random people on the street are not obligated to answer their questions or even stop what they are doing (this all changes when police are actually investigating a crime
Re: (Score:2)
I also doubt that an easement for pedestrian foot traffic actually implies that other rights of the property owner are relinquished.
I can understand why someone might be confused about that because a private sidewalk looks a lot like a public sidewalk. But I would bet a lot of money that a judge will side with the police, assuming the hospital owns that land under the sidewalk and requested police assistance.
Re: (Score:2)
This guy was Loitering
to linger or hang around in a public place or business where one has no particular or legal purpose. In many states, cities and towns there are statutes or ordinances against loitering by which the police can arrest someone who refuses to "move along."
The police absolutely had a reason to arrest him.
Loitering laws cannot be used to stop the exercise of a constitutionally protected activities.
The police officer was being as big an asshole as the guy.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if he was loitering while he trespassed.
When would loitering while trespassing act as a defense against trespass charges? That's weak, weak sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Those privacy rights of those patients supersede his butthurt. Simple as that. Would you want him taping your mom being treated?
Umm .. he didn't violate HIPAA (no, it's not HIPPA). That's a misconception that is bandied around by people who don't know what they are talking about.
And if he was taking the pics from a public location then he wasn't even trespassing. I haven't surveyed the purported location he was on, but if he is a genuine "First amendment crusader" then he knows exactly where the line is and what to do to not cross it.
Re: (Score:2)
Those privacy rights of those patients supersede his butthurt. Simple as that. Would you want him taping your mom being treated?
Umm .. he didn't violate HIPAA (no, it's not HIPPA). That's a misconception that is bandied around by people who don't know what they are talking about.
And if he was taking the pics from a public location then he wasn't even trespassing. I haven't surveyed the purported location he was on, but if he is a genuine "First amendment crusader" then he should know exactly where the line is and be careful to not cross it.
FTFY. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You realize HIPPA's scope is medical people and their agents, right? If your mother felt butthurt about people on the street seeing her fanny while being carried into the hospital, she should consider suing the hospital or ambulance company for allowing it to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
HIPAA (with two As) protects you from misuse of your data by people in the medical industry. It no more protects you against this sort of thing than the First Amendment protects you from having your YouTube account suspended by YouTube. Which is to say, it doesn’t protect you at all in this instance.
Re: He violated HIPPA. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, on May 9th 2020 you still didn't know that isolation is to flatten the curve not stop the spread?
Really? You thought that if very few people get infected locally it means you're "out of" the problems? I don't believe you're this stupid and ignorant. You must be a trollbot.
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down in early March would have only slowed down the inevitable
Oh really [imgur.com]?
Re: Won't go nowhere (Score:2)
Shutting down in early March would have only slowed down the inevitable.
Nitwit shill, everyone now knows it spread around the planet last year... I'd suggest you get a little caught-up if you want your shilling to seem less obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
The fuck?
The press is a right we have, to all act as the press, you dipstick.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom on the press is null and void and the private side walk he was trespassing on.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
"I may disagree with your video (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my right to be a jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't mean that my actions are free of consequence. In this country, I can pretty much burn my life, career, job, reputation, and physical belongings to the ground at any point in time. Plenty of people do exactly this on a regular basis. And you might respond with "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose"....... but the hard truth is that America tolerates an astoundingly high amount of collateral damage in order to sustain these freedoms. See: gun rights.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you smoking? You only have the right to be jerk in this country if you are white. If you are black and armed (even if you have a license or its an open carry state) cops will shoot you dead first and make up a reason later.
Re: (Score:2)
>"It's also my right to call out people like this, and call them exactly what they are."
Just make sure if you cast specific allegations, you can prove them in a court... since you could face slander or liable charges...
>"This doesn't mean that my actions are free of consequence. "
Exactly.
>"America tolerates an astoundingly high amount of collateral damage in order to sustain these freedoms. See: gun rights."
I don't think "gun rights" is a good example to use. We don't create or tolerate "an astoun
What's the problem? (Score:2)
I can't even figure out how this behavior is even seen as bothersome. He wasn't interfering with anyone's ability to do anything. He was making sure that there was a publicly-available of events with immense public interest. He is basically a journalist in a way that nobody who actually gets paid to be one has done in years.
Generally speaking, you have a right (Score:2)
to video stuff from places you have a right to be. This does *not* preclude charges of trespassing, disturbing the peace or threats while taking videos.
The facts of the case are what matter. Did he threaten someone? If so that's illegal, even if he was doing it with the intent of getting material to publish.
Likewise was he on hospital property or off? If he was on, was in in a public space or a restricted space? If he was in a public space, was he doing something the landowner told him not to? Suppose s
He's Not Wrong, but . . (Score:2)
He's not wrong, but he's still a bit of an asshole.
Re:mayo activist (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly he was white. If he was black, the cop would have just tuned him up, and then say he committed suicide while locked in the trunk of his own car.
I hate it when people bring race into every possible conversation. At any rate, you are wrong. He is black. [bostonherald.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Still, he added the judge will "have to throw it out." He added it's "punishment itself" to go to court in this climate. McCullough, records state, does not have an attorney yet. He did say he's ready to plead his case. "Don't be brainwashed," he added, "and it shouldn't be a problem when a black man has a camera."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly he was white. If he was black, the cop would have just tuned him up, and then say he committed suicide while locked in the trunk of his own car.
I hate it when people bring race into every possible conversation. At any rate, you are wrong. He is black. [bostonherald.com]
White people have no monopoly on being complete assholes.
Re: Freedom and rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong again. You have no expectation of privacy in a hospital and HIPPA does not prevent video recording.
Cop and videographer were both asses but this is par the course in assachussetes. The state of shitty accents, food, and sports teams.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even think the hospital part is relevant, unless there is specific legislation related to it. The part about the hospital is to both play on people's common mistakes about HIPAA and to "tug on their feelings" about it.
Lets fix your second sentence, to be "You have no expectation of privacy in a parking lot"
Re: (Score:2)
Which "right to privacy" might that be?
Re: (Score:2)
The one that is achieved de-facto by getting the cop to make the arrest.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, now we have at least some people defending the concept of the cops inventing "laws" on the spot when something rubs them the wrong way. It's not nearly as big a problem when mayors, governors and presidents do the same; to wit, "Shelter-in-place".
Re: (Score:2)
"I understand how people may feel, but that doesn't mean I should be locked up," McCullough said... "Did I break the law? No. I may have been rude," he added. "I understand people may feel jittery, but where peoples' feelings start my rights don't stop...."
Actually, one person's rights and freedoms end where those of others begin. He was violating the right to privacy of others, so it seems crystal clear to me that he was in the wrong.
Except that it's been established time-and-again that you have no right to privacy in a public space, neither do the police. It's no different than taking pictures and/or video in a public park. What makes it seem different is that a hospital tends to be an emotionally charged environment, especially so during the pandemic. But under the law there is no difference. I could go on about how your feeling of the right to privacy is normal but ignorant of reality and that most Governments would fight you too
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how it works. You can't exert that kind of control over space that is open to the public. We went through this years ago when malls tried to kick people out for wearing offensive shirts.
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how it works. You can't exert that kind of control over space that is open to the public.
Yes you can. If you own a grocery store, bar, restaurant, you can't ask someone to leave your property for any reason?
We went through this years ago when malls tried to kick people out for wearing offensive shirts.
The mall had a legal right to ask the anyone to leave; however it appears that they did not have a real good reason as the individual was wearing a shirt that was they sold and not breaking any laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I understand how people may feel, but that doesn't mean I should be locked up," McCullough said... "Did I break the law? No. I may have been rude," he added. "I understand people may feel jittery, but where peoples' feelings start my rights don't stop...."
Actually, one person's rights and freedoms end where those of others begin. He was violating the right to privacy of others, so it seems crystal clear to me that he was in the wrong.
He wasn't violating people's right to privacy, but you have the important quote that will be used in his trial.
He knew people were feeling "jittery" and that his statements affected their "feelings," so it isn't that hard to show that he knew his statements would be alarming since he was standing near emergency vehicles responding to medical emergencies.
This isn't anything close to an edge case; most of the charges will stand, if the DA pursues it.
Re: (Score:2)
He was filming a ramp on the street, anything that can be seen from the street is public, including your front lawn, that's how google street view works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. This is FACTUALLY WRONG.
That is a PUBLIC WAY, owned by the CITY. He stood on a PUBLIC SIDEWALK, paralleling said PUBLIC WAY.
Are you just making shit up? Because this is my neighborhood, and I'm pretty sure that you're not from around here, and are just making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. This is FACTUALLY RIGHT.
That is a PRIVATE WAY, owned by the HARVARD. He stood on a PRIVATE SIDEWALK, paralleling said PRIVATE WAY.
I’m just making shit up because I’m a moron that doesn’t understand the lay.
Fixed that for you.
Fruit St and N Grove St are both public ways. Please shut the fuck up and stop lying about things that can be trivially verified.
Re: (Score:2)
Fruit St and N Grove St are both private ways that can be trivially verified.
Fixed that for you. Even if they were public, which they are factually not, a police office can give you a legal order to leave which disobeying is illegal.
Again, you blatantly lie. What do you get from this?
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Privately owned but open to the general public still counts as public.
In what world is that true? Every private business I know: bars, restaurants, stores, etc are private and open to the general public. They are still private.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case I completely agree with the cop. Why was this guy adding fuel to an already tense situation that is involving people dying with one of the most infectious viruses we've ever seen...?
The guy filming proved he has zero emotional (and other kinds) of intelligence.
I'll preface this with saying that I am not defending this guy's actions (and I don't know if they are legal or not). However I have watched many videos online from "First amendment crusaders" acting within the letter of the law where LE confronted them with bogus accusations and tried to intimidate them with "Respect mah authoritah!". These crusaders seem to want want to use provocation of LE as a means to educate LE as to where the law actually stands. I assume that for them, doing so in such a highly
Re: (Score:2)
With that said I am of two minds here. On one hand I am well aware of many instances of LE overstepping the bounds of what is legal, and that LE that do that need to be educated. On the other hand I can't reconcile how much of a $Insert_Fav_Desscriptor you have to be as a private citizen in order to carry out that educational task.
It always comes down at some point to "if not me, then who? if not now, then when?".
Not that I do stuff like this, got too much other stuff to worry about. But someone who is passionate about it, wants to maybe make a difference, doesn't have a ton of other responsibilities already (like supporting a wife and family) and doesn't really want to "work" a real job it could be viable.
Plenty of vids on youtube of folks doing it. Based on the amount of hits, I'm sure they are getting some money out of it. Tea
Re: (Score:2)
. Why was this guy adding fuel to an already tense situation that is involving people dying with one of the most infectious viruses we've ever seen...?
Tense situations that involve people dying are the kind of things that you want filmed.....
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are just a problem in themselves. Unfortunately, to protect all the non-assholes, you have to protect some extreme assholes as well.
Re: Completely agree with the Cop (Score:2)
He said "most infectious", not most deadly.
If you're going to ve a smart ass, then at least make sure your reading undetstanding is average or bettet before you go off.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's a good thing he wasn't on private property.
Take it from someone who lives and works RIGHT THERE.
It's a PUBLIC SIDEWALK paralleling a PUBLIC WAY, and if you walked in the road, the Suffolk PD would be asking you what drugs you were on.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's too bad thing he was on private property.
From the official Boston Streetbook [cityofboston.gov]:
The listing for Fruit St and N Grove St are given,
Fruit Street, B.P., Public way, from 215
Charles Street to 36 North Grove Street.
North Grove Street, B.P., Public way, from
275 Cambridge Street to Fruit Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah a black man with a camera is arrested yet white men with guns protesting and violently trespassing a legislature are dealt with kid gloves. Coronavirus is not the only disease America is suffering from