On this historic day, the United States Supreme Court ruled on Miranda vs. Arizona. Miranda’s conviction was overturned and it established the Miranda Rights Waiver (short version).
In light of this decision, there are many out there that seem to think that this ruling applies to police conduct and action.
Recently, I have had three experiences with a young man who is a contributing photographer for This Land.
This Land is a new internet media source, boasting integrity and all sorts of high moral standards.
I think it was very surprising that this young photographer has some really choice words for a public servant.
This Land photographer had shouted some profanity towards a public servant working a special event to raise money for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The event was called Rumble and Roll.
This Land photographer shouted the “F” word towards the public servant as he was performing his duties at East 33rd and South Peoria Ave. Many who heard this profanity were outraged by his spontaneous utterance. Apparently the public servant was not surprised by This Land photographers statement (the use of profanity).
At a second event, This Land photographer was seen violating the City’s ordinance for walking in the street. A public servant merely pointed out to the gentleman (word used liberally) and requested him to move to the sidewalk.
This Land photographer approached the public servant and expressed his extreme hatred towards a public servant who uses his authority to abuse citizens. Wow, it was just a request to move to the sidewalk and it was not even a citation.
Amazingly, in my opinion, telling a citizen that they are violating the law is not necessarily abuse of authority.
The next encounter for This Land photographer was just down the street. Citizens were concerned that someone was walking in the street (where sidewalks are provided) and shouting obscenities.
When the public servant approached again and requested, for a second time, for This Land photographer to use the appropriate sidewalk. The public servant then gave a nice lecture about how, This Land boasts their publication to be honest and full of integrity, but their employees do not share in the same sense of commitment of integrity.
This young photographer is out of control. This young photographer is ignorant (see definition in Websters) and believes that he can violate any law, ordinance or rule and that a public servant does not have any right to approach him and correct his behavior.
If this is the type of integrity that This Land wants to exhibit, then their high and mighty morals and standards that they boast are nothing more than hypocritical.
According to This Land they advise that this young photographer is not an employee of the organization, but merely a freelance photographer. However their website lists him as a photographer, which one could assume, like I did, that he is employed by the organization.
So upon the request of This Land they feel that it is important to make this post factual, by stating that this young photographer was a freelance photographer and not employed by This Land.
Is it amazing how one can perceive an incident so differently. I guess this is what makes America so great.
And to This Land, not realizing that the masthead did not create a distinction, I apologize for making an assumption based on the lack of detail on the masthead.