Indianapolis Cop Fears Man with Camera Could be Cop Killer

[Rhoadmar]

So I found out after talking to some people that the cameraman "Jeff" may be the same guy that has been throwing rocks at windows of businesses (sometimes breaking said windows) at the same intersection in order to set off the alarm and then film the police when they show up to check the alarm.

If I was just out filming and anyone asked me what I was doing I would politely answer giving the reason even if it is as inane as I liked the way this section of street looks in this light and photography is a hobby. If my intent was as Jeff's is stated "trolling for cops" behaving illegally, I would state that in the same manner, politely whether it it was a LEO or average joe blow. Of what are Jeff and his com padres afraid. I would not tolerate a LEO or anyone for that matter stepping on my rights. A lot can be accomplished thru calm polite discourse.

 

[Doug]

So I found out after talking to some people that the cameraman "Jeff" may be the same guy that has been throwing rocks at windows of businesses (sometimes breaking said windows) at the same intersection in order to set off the alarm and then film the police when they show up to check the alarm.

Wow, it would be hard to do, but catching him doing that, on video, would certainly be poetic justice.
Of course, it would have to be high-resolution video or he'd just calim he was being framed.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

If I was just out filming and anyone asked me what I was doing I would politely answer giving the reason even if it is as inane as I liked the way this section of street looks in this light and photography is a hobby. If my intent was as Jeff's is stated "trolling for cops" behaving illegally, I would state that in the same manner, politely whether it it was a LEO or average joe blow. Of what are Jeff and his com padres afraid. I would not tolerate a LEO or anyone for that matter stepping on my rights. A lot can be accomplished thru calm polite discourse.

That has nothing to do with him possibly breaking windows/setting off a business alarm to garner a police response.

 

[Doug]

If I was just out filming and anyone asked me what I was doing I would politely answer giving the reason even if it is as inane as I liked the way this section of street looks in this light and photography is a hobby. If my intent was as Jeff's is stated "trolling for cops" behaving illegally, I would state that in the same manner, politely whether it it was a LEO or average joe blow. Of what are Jeff and his com padres afraid. I would not tolerate a LEO or anyone for that matter stepping on my rights. A lot can be accomplished thru calm polite discourse.

Yeah, well, when a guy parked in front of my neighbors house (a retired school teacher) at 11:30 PM and somebody got out and walked off down the street and around the corner about 1/4 mile away, I got my camera and took a picture of his car.
He claimed I had no right or reason to do that.
I told him my mailbox had been smashed and the police told me to keep an eye out for strange cars in the neighborhood. Since I didn't recognize his car, it was strange to me, so I took the picture.
He claimed the guy that got out was going to see a friend, so I asked why he didn't park in front of the friends house. No answer.

After a while, I went back inside. He left a while later and never was seen again. He either parked somewhere else or found another supplier.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

So I found out after talking to some people that the cameraman "Jeff" may be the same guy that has been throwing rocks at windows of businesses (sometimes breaking said windows) at the same intersection in order to set off the alarm and then film the police when they show up to check the alarm.

hmm...yea i talked to some people too and they also said that this man "may" also be the third shooter on the grassy knoll and in addition to that he "may" be linked to the dead cat bodies that have been turning up all over town. so if any of you see this guy be extremely careful because he "may" be one crazy son of whatever you want to call him.

my guess is that if there were any factual basis for the window breaking allegations then this guy would already have been run in and prosecuted. i thought the police solve crime based on facts and evidence? not supposition and hypotheticals. innocent until proven guilty isnt around anymore?

 

[fireblade]

my guess is that if there were any factual basis for the window breaking allegations then this guy would already have been run in and prosecuted. i thought the police solve crime based on facts and evidence? not supposition and hypotheticals. innocent until proven guilty isnt around anymore?

no........


the real truth is you are guilty until proven innocent and must pay with money to gain your freedom until you are proven innocent in a court of law to keep your freedom ...... or in any investgation by said agency ......

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

hmm...yea i talked to some people too and they also said that this man "may" also be the third shooter on the grassy knoll and in addition to that he "may" be linked to the dead cat bodies that have been turning up all over town. so if any of you see this guy be extremely careful because he "may" be one crazy son of whatever you want to call him.

my guess is that if there were any factual basis for the window breaking allegations then this guy would already have been run in and prosecuted. i thought the police solve crime based on facts and evidence? not supposition and hypotheticals. innocent until proven guilty isnt around anymore?

I never inferred that he was guilty of anything. I said that he is suspected of throwing rocks at and sometimes breaking windows in order to set off an alarm and cause the police to respond. I will infer that if it is the same person his motives should be questioned.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

Search Results

1. 1. in·fer
      
      /inˈfər/
      
      Verb
      Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
      
      while i do not know what evidence and reasoning you and your colleagues are going on, i will say that your explicit statement was somewhat lacking of evidence and reasoning
      
      

 

[CathyInBlue]

So I found out after talking to some people that the cameraman "Jeff" may be the same guy that has been throwing rocks at windows of businesses (sometimes breaking said windows) at the same intersection in order to set off the alarm and then film the police when they show up to check the alarm.

I never inferred that he was guilty of anything. I said that he is suspected of throwing rocks at and sometimes breaking windows in order to set off an alarm and cause the police to respond. I will infer that if it is the same person his motives should be questioned.

Would that be what a court might call a "reasonable, articulable suspicion"?

If true, it shouldn't be that hard to catch him on video.

Just wait for him to publish his own video of him doing it on YouTube.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Search Results

1. 1. in·fer
      
      /inˈfər/
      
      Verb
      Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
      
      while i do not know what evidence and reasoning you and your colleagues are going on, i will say that your explicit statement was somewhat lacking of evidence and reasoning
      
      

Ok so I used the wrong word Mr. Webster. Which of my statements was explicit? I would say my original statement of him being suspected of purposely setting off the alarm in order to garner a police response was more accusatory than explicit.

Would that be what a court might call a "reasonable, articulable suspicion"?

Not according to Sgt. Striker.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

ok, you win. its cool to put someones name on the internet in connection with crimes that cant be proven or substantiated in a court of law. if the guy has commited a crime then arrest and prosecute. otherwise maybe we could lay off the libel and slander.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

ok, you win. its cool to put someones name on the internet in connection with crimes that cant be proven or substantiated in a court of law. if the guy has commited a crime then arrest and prosecute. otherwise maybe we could lay off the libel and slander.

He said his own name in the video and then posted his video on the internet.

As far as libel and slander, how did I do that? All I said was that there is suspicion that he is possibly the same guy trying to film cops by summoning them with false alarms and property damage. So I'm still waiting for you to explain my "explicit" statements and how I'm defaming his good name.

 

[TheReaper]

My understanding of SCs is that they generally function like most other people--go to work, pay the bills, etc., with the significant exception of being de facto anarchists in terms of rejecting government authority and generally rejecting the need for any form of official permission for anything including but not limited to refusing to use drivers' licenses, secure permits for regulated activities and such. Having not become acquainted with any of them, is this a sound understanding in your experience?

I should also ask, does seeing more of them mean that their group has increased from 7 to 23, or is the place crawling with them?

The first paragraph is very accurate, except for a small detail of the fact thta they have no problem with killing law enforcement officers when confronted for "refusing to use drivers' licenses." As for the volume of them, they are becoming VERY common these days, even in Indiana.

 

[Sgt.Striker]

yeah you are right, you didnt actually say the man was guilty of any crimes because you have absolutely no proof or evidence to the contrary. just like you "talked to some people" i talked to some people too. and they said that YOU are suspected of being the one who broke out the windows of said businesses. i have no evidence to back up these claims but im gonna post it on the internet anyways. and i want to stress the fact that you "may" be guilty of these crimes but then again you "may" not be guilty.
when you have some real evidence to back up your unsubstantiated claims i will be more than happy to admit im wrong. otherwise....go back to posting nonsensical statements with no basis in reality and the sheep around here will gladly take it as fact.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The first paragraph is very accurate, except for a small detail of the fact thta they have no problem with killing law enforcement officers when confronted for "refusing to use drivers' licenses." As for the volume of them, they are becoming VERY common these days, even in Indiana.

Are they an organized or congregating group or do they just individually fall within a general type that doesn't necessarily congregate or fraternize (like the time in high school a Christian friend asked an atheist friend what atheists believe happens after death to which John answered, "I can tell you what I believe, but it's not like we get together and decide on a standard way to believe in nothing.")?

 

[level.eleven]

Triggering alarms by throwing rocks at windows, sometimes breaking them, is a crime. If there are reports of a man filming the incident each time, I see no problem in approaching a man in the same area who is recording. Even if a trigger hasn't occurred. This is the definition of investigation.

In addition, this is a reminder of the stupid S of with which police put. I lose that perspective from time to time.

 

[TheReaper]

Are they an organized or congregating group or do they just individually fall within a general type that doesn't necessarily congregate or fraternize (like the time in high school a Christian friend asked an atheist friend what atheists believe happens after death to which John answered, "I can tell you what I believe, but it's not like we get together and decide on a standard way to believe in nothing.")?

I think that it's going to depend. Some areas are more known for having well organized groups, but some may just be "stragglers" so to speak or just "individuals" or small groups on their own such as Jerry kane and his son Joe. Either way they can be dangerous for officers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think that it's going to depend. Some areas are more known for having well organized groups, but some may just be "stragglers" so to speak or just "individuals" or small groups on their own such as Jerry kane and his son Joe. Either way they can be dangerous for officers.

Another question that came to mind is whether these violent outbursts are a matter of choice (i.e., kill a cop for the cause) or getting caught in a situation in which they simply do not see an alternative to going for broke that ends well (not that ventilating police ends well either). It doesn't make much difference so far as the end results are concerned, but the information may be useful to know in some situations.

 

[TheReaper]

Another question that came to mind is whether these violent outbursts are a matter of choice (i.e., kill a cop for the cause) or getting caught in a situation in which they simply do not see an alternative to going for broke that ends well (not that ventilating police ends well either). It doesn't make much difference so far as the end results are concerned, but the information may be useful to know in some situations.

Well, they believe in only the county Sheriff as the sole law enforcement officer since they operate under the beliefs of old english law where the Shire Reeve from England was the ultimate autority, so to speak. Since they see the Sheriff as the ultimate authority, they will challenge any other law enforcement officer, let's say just on a traffic stop for no license plate. That stop in turn rolls over into them not having or refusing to give an drivers license and their (most of them) belief in their way of life powers them so much that they will use force against any other officer (other than the Sheriff) attempting to make an arrest. It isn't as simple as a situation that "they do not see an alternative to going for broke that ends well." They believe that an officer stopping them is an invasion upon them. I believe that most of them feel that it's their right to challenge law enforcement, even if it has the result of a law enforcement officer being murdered. That's one reason why Indiana's "right to resist law" can be very dangerous for Indiana law enforcement that are even acting LEGALLY in situations dealing with such radicals.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well, they believe in only the county Sheriff as the sole law enforcement officer since they operate under the beliefs of old english law where the Shire Reeve from England was the ultimate autority, so to speak. Since they see the Sheriff as the ultimate authority, they will challenge any other law enforcement officer, let's say just on a traffic stop for no license plate. That stop in turn rolls over into them not having or refusing to give an drivers license and their (most of them) belief in their way of life powers them so much that they will use force against any other officer (other than the Sheriff) attempting to make an arrest. It isn't as simple as a situation that "they do not see an alternative to going for broke that ends well." They believe that an officer stopping them is an invasion upon them. I believe that most of them feel that it's their right to challenge law enforcement, even if it has the result of a law enforcement officer being murdered. That's one reason why Indiana's "right to resist law" can be very dangerous for Indiana law enforcement that are even acting LEGALLY in situations dealing with such radicals.

I am getting the feeling that this mindset can be a challenge to truly understand!