Felony charges for posting pictures of police officer

[Fargo]

If it's clearly in retaliation? No. Honest answer.

So how is the effect of the newspaper publishing your picture/occupation after you make a stunning arrest any different from the effect of Mope T. Puke posting it complaining that you put bogus charges up against him?

Best,

Joe

 

[Kutnupe14]

Should it be illegal to post your picture/occupation? Should the citizenry not be able to determine who their LEO's are?

Honest question.

Joe

Nope, not al all. Personally, I think the officer is an idiot. If a meth-head can track him down that easily, well maybe he's not the sharpest guy in plastic knife box.
Now, going back to your original question. Considering the facts of the case, I believe the woman should be charged under harassment or intimidation. She was not communicating a legitimate message, but rather was attempting to make problems for said idiot. That's what makes a difference, IMO.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I find it interesting that in a story that is essentially meth head vs. police, many of you are relating best with the meth head. When it comes down to it, and it very well could be in the town I live in, I will easily trust police over meth head.

You obviously do not live in Evansville then

I dont trust the meth heads either though

 

[public servant]

Didnt see anything in the article that mentioned any retaliatory threats

Retaliation doesn't have to be a threat. The retaliation was against him testifying.

Reference your other post, the article doesn't say the police officer was the one that posted the photo on the internet. If he did have a Facebook account, it was stupid on his part to include photos. But it did say the photo did not identify his profession.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nope, not al all. Personally, I think the officer is an idiot. If a meth-head can track him down that easily, well maybe he's not the sharpest guy in plastic knife box.
Now, going back to your original question. Considering the facts of the case, I believe the woman should be charged under harassment or intimidation. She was not communicating a legitimate message, but rather was attempting to make problems for said idiot. That's what makes a difference, IMO.

Very good point Kut. If you get made by a couple meth heads using Facebook maybe it is time to start writing speeding tickets

 

[public servant]

So how is the effect of the newspaper publishing your picture/occupation after you make a stunning arrest any different from the effect of Mope T. Puke posting it complaining that you put bogus charges up against him?

Best,

Joe

See post 42.

Nope, not al all. Personally, I think the officer is an idiot. If a meth-head can track him down that easily, well maybe he's not the sharpest guy in plastic knife box.
Now, going back to your original question. Considering the facts of the case, I believe the woman should be charged under harassment or intimidation. She was not communicating a legitimate message, but rather was attempting to make problems for said idiot. That's what makes a difference, IMO.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Retaliation doesn't have to be a threat. The retaliation was against him testifying.

Reference your other post, the article doesn't say the police officer was the one that posted the photo on the internet. If he did have a Facebook account, it was stupid on his part to include photos. But it did say the photo did not identify his profession.

But if you are going to be undercover and testify in court in a manner that the bad guy can see you while giving testimony, you better damn well be sure your pic is not on any ones FB account that you know.

 

[public servant]

But if you are going to be undercover and testify in court in a manner that the bad guy can see you while giving testimony, you better damn well be sure your pic is not on any ones FB account that you know.

I see your point. But again, the article doesn't specify where the photo came from.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I find it interesting that in a story that is essentially meth head vs. police, many of you are relating best with the meth head. When it comes down to it, and it very well could be in the town I live in, I will easily trust police over meth head.

I think you are completely missing the point. No, I don't like meth heads. The meth head is incidental to my concerns, and is in fact a hindrance to making the point at issue. This is how .gov encroachment works. At first, the encroachment is directed at people who most 'normal' lawful citizens are not going to give any sympathy without thinking about the larger implications. By the time this becomes a problem for the rest of us, well, by God, it's a long-established precedent and we don't have any legitimate complaint about it. This is how proper law enforcement morphs into unaccountable secret police from whom you either live in fear or don't live very long.

No, I am not forecasting Gestapo or KGB coming to a neighborhood near you next week, but our nation is trending toward progressively less freedom and a more powerful and centralized government. I see absolutely no point in expediting the process. Don't forget the force Obama has openly proposed. Now, once again, are you sure you want to support this pattern?

 

[Fargo]

Nope, not al all. Personally, I think the officer is an idiot. If a meth-head can track him down that easily, well maybe he's not the sharpest guy in plastic knife box.
Now, going back to your original question. Considering the facts of the case, I believe the woman should be charged under harassment or intimidation. She was not communicating a legitimate message, but rather was attempting to make problems for said idiot. That's what makes a difference, IMO.

You would never make intimidation under Indiana law. You would have to have a threat and that threat would have to have been communicated by her to the officer. You are going to have a hard time showing that she made a threat and no way to show she published it to the officer.

Harrassment in Indiana also requires impermissible contact between the offender and the victim which is missing here.

Plus, I still think that even if there was a law against publishing such info, it would fall in the face of the 1st Amendment. The public has a very valid political interest in having open law enforcement and creating a "secret police" force for domestic use is going to run into 1st Amdendment and 14th Amendment problems.


The only legal way I can think to try to prevent such publications is by making it illegal for gov't actors in possession of such info to disclose it.

I just don't see how photos of you floating around in public are not going to be constitutionally protected.

Best,

Joe

 

[DR II]

I am never surprised by the stuff that gets posted on here!

 

[IndyDave1776]

Nope, not al all. Personally, I think the officer is an idiot. If a meth-head can track him down that easily, well maybe he's not the sharpest guy in plastic knife box.
Now, going back to your original question. Considering the facts of the case, I believe the woman should be charged under harassment or intimidation. She was not communicating a legitimate message, but rather was attempting to make problems for said idiot. That's what makes a difference, IMO.

By this logic we could make dissemination of information which could have a deleterious effect on any public official a felony. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to rediscover the Sedition Act of 1798 which essentially made it a crime to criticize the government.

Edit: I have been searching for this 'legitimate message' clause and cannot find it. Perhaps someone can help me?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[public servant]

All those that don't have an issue with this, send me a photo of yourselves and I'll make up flyers indicating you as an undercover narcotics agent and post them all over town.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I see your point. But again, the article doesn't specify where the photo came from.

After searching online, Pickens had discovered the photo on Facebook without any tag to identify the undercover officer’s personal Facebook account.

 

[public servant]

After searching online, Pickens had discovered the photo on Facebook without any tag to identify the undercover officer’s personal Facebook account.

Read more: Woman faces felony after posting photo of undercover cop on Facebook | Digital Trends

I agree then. He is stupid for putting a photo of himself on the net.

 

[Shelly1582]

I think you are completely missing the point. No, I don't like meth heads. The meth head is incidental to my concerns, and is in fact a hindrance to making the point at issue. This is how .gov encroachment works. At first, the encroachment is directed at people who most 'normal' lawful citizens are not going to give any sympathy without thinking about the larger implications. By the time this becomes a problem for the rest of us, well, by God, it's a long-established precedent and we don't have any legitimate complaint about it. This is how proper law enforcement morphs into unaccountable secret police from whom you either live in fear or don't live very long.

No, I am not forecasting Gestapo or KGB coming to a neighborhood near you next week, but our nation is trending toward progressively less freedom and a more powerful and centralized government. I see absolutely no point in expediting the process. Don't forget the force Obama has openly proposed. Now, once again, are you sure you want to support this pattern?

I do get your point that it is a slippery slope and we should be against things being done to the worst of society because it could eventually negatively impact the good. I just think we need to protect our law enforcement officers at the same time. Are you going to continue to do your job of going undercover, mingling with dangerous scum, if you are forced to give them your real name in court. Or if there are no repercussions for them identifying you to their friends so that next time your in that dark alley with people you think don't know you are a cop you never get to walk out of that alley.


EDIT: Before anyone points it out, I realize my sentence structure is poor.

 

[IndyDave1776]

All those that don't have an issue with this, send me a photo of yourselves and I'll make up flyers indicating you as an undercover narcotics agent and post them all over town.

You may have failed to notice that I am not one, did not sign up to be one, and do not receive any compensation for being one. You are comparing apples with oranges.

If you want to make up flyers indicating that I am a truck driver, that's different.

 

[Shelly1582]

After searching online, Pickens had discovered the photo on Facebook without any tag to identify the undercover officer’s personal Facebook account.

It says the photo was in no way connected to his facebook, therefor it would not have mattered if he had a facebook.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I do get your point that it is a slippery slope and we should be against things being done to the worst of society because it could eventually negatively impact the good. I just think we need to protect our law enforcement officers at the same time. Are you going to continue to do your job of going undercover, mingling with dangerous scum, if you are forced to give them your real name in court. Or if there are no repercussions for them identifying you to their friends so that next time your in that dark alley with people you think don't know you are a cop you never get to walk out of that alley.


EDIT: Before anyone points it out, I realize my sentence structure is poor.

If I witness a murder or a bad drug deal going down those same police officers would want me to give testimony in front of every one, why the double standard?

 

[Fargo]

All those that don't have an issue with this, send me a photo of yourselves and I'll make up flyers indicating you as an undercover narcotics agent and post them all over town.

That makes no sense.

No one forces anyone to become a Narc Officer, they know what they are doing when they sign up. They also know the risks involved should their identity become know. They willfully choose to assume that risk by impersonating criminals, lying to them, gaining their confidence, and testifying against them.

If they don't want those risks, then don't sign up.

I personally think it takes a helluva lot of testicular fortitude to be an undercover officer; but that should in no way lessen the 1st Amendment rights of the citizenry.

Joe