PetaPixel

NJ Cop: Constitutional Right to Take Pictures in Public Null Because ‘Obama Has Decimated the Friggin’ Constitution’

A New Jersey police officer is making headlines for how he responded Monday to a resident taking pictures in a public building. When the resident, one Steve Wronko, explained that it was his constitutional right, the officer told Wronko that “Obama has decimated the friggin’ constitution, so … if he doesn’t follow the constitution, we don’t have to.”

According to USA Today, the officer in question is Special Police Officer Richard Recine of the Borough of Helmetta Police Department, and he is now under an internal affairs investigation after the video was posted online and was seen by Police Director Robert Manney.

Screen Shot 2014-08-07 at 1.59.21 PM

Director Manney, who actually appears in the video after Recine made his statements, says Wronko was “looking for an issue” but still called Officer Recine’s comments an “embarrassment.” He assures USA Today that the investigation will be “completed swiftly” due to the overwhelming evidence.

(via USA Today)


Update: According to NJ.com, Officer Recine has officially resigned following the incident.


 
  • Rob Elliott

    give an example… one where he actually does something that actually goes against the US Constitution.

  • Zos Xavius

    LOL. I fail to see much difference between the two to be honest. Really people need to start looking at congress. The federal government is a lot more than one person.

  • Mojo

    Czars: The moniker for appointees who report to no one but the president has taken on a new and eerie resemblance to the dusty Russian tsars of old. Article 2.2 grants the president leeway to appoint managers, but those managers may not have any regulatory, legislative or law-making powers — such powers are reserved to the legislative branch. Today’s “czars” have the power of cabinet members without having to go through a vetting process or the confirmation process prescribed for cabinet members. Czars are unelected and untouchable political decision-makers — in violation of Article 1.1.

  • Mojo

    Cash for Clunkers: The government offered $4,500 rebates to people turning in their clunkers for more fuel-efficient vehicles. When the first program quickly ran out of the $4 billion allotted to it, another $2 billion was added. Follow-up analysis showed the program did nothing to stimulate the economy and put many people into additional debt by encouraging them to purchase cars that they otherwise would not have bought during these hard economic times. The government has zero authority to selectively give individuals tax money for purchases of vehicles, according to Articles 1.2 and 1.8 — and common sense.

  • Mojo

    Illegal Immigration: Arizona is being invaded. When that state passed SB 1070 to stem the flow of violent illegals into its sovereign territory, a derelict federal government turned around and sued. At issue was the Feds’ failure to control the border, so Arizona took it upon itself to do just that — to uphold existing federal immigration laws. It didn’t add new laws; it simply gave local authorities the power to enforce federal responsibilities. The federal government claims the right to manage immigration, but when it refuses to carry out that obligation, thereby jeopardizing the security of border states, it is derelict in its duties. Arizona should haul the federal government before the Supreme Court for malfeasance. Article 4.4 clearly states that the U.S. shall protect states from invasion — more than 400,000 illegal aliens (est.) in Arizona is, by definition, an invasion.

  • Mojo

    Economic Stimulus Bill: The $814 billion stimulus is the most backward-thinking proposition to come along since human sacrifice. Dumping borrowed money into an over-fed, bloated and out-of-control ogre doesn’t solve anything, it simply temporarily props up with blocks of melting ice cream a failed and failing government of extravagance. Not only does it illegally take money out of the economy that could be used to provide jobs, but it’s using borrowed money — with interest due.

  • Mojo

    Health Care Reform: Health care reform was the last lever needed to lift the lid off the pot of American gold and empty it out for socialism. It required all Americans to have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Earlier this month, Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson said that the government has no power “to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market.”

    The string of constitutional violations supporting the judge’s rejection is long and shocking:

    For purposes of regulation, Congress invoked Article 1.8 and claimed insurance may be controlled because it falls under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. But insurance is not interstate commerce — you can’t buy insurance across state lines.

    Language in the bill says the health care law may NOT be changed or amended by anyone once signed into law. This violates the role of Congress. Article 1.1 makes it clear that only Congress is authorized to make law, meaning it has every right to alter, amend and change the health care law. To restrict Congress is to change its constitutional duty. The 111th Congress must think it can change the Constitution without amending it — a violation of Article 5, which outlines the amendment process.

    The health care bill also violates the 10th Amendment because it coerces states into complying with a new national program that reaches far into state jurisdiction.

  • Mojo

    Are these sufficient, or do you need more?

  • Rob Elliott

    Not Unconstitutional, not illegal. Learn some laws. Maybe get an education.

  • Rob Elliott

    Nope not unconstitutional, not breaking any laws.

  • Rob Elliott

    Nope not illegal, not unconstitutional.

    Not the definitions of an invasion.

  • Mojo

    And the others, smart guy?

  • Rob Elliott

    Nope not illegal, nor unconsitutional.

  • Rob Elliott

    Nope wrong.

    You have failed at every point.

  • Mojo

    Got an MBA. That’s a good edumacashun, don’t ya thunk?

  • Rob Elliott

    I’m going through them. You failed to understand US Constitutional law, congressional law, basic law, or examples of these usages in their historical context.

  • Zos Xavius

    What about the illegal and unconstitutional spying on american citizens? What about the illegal secret terrorist watch lists with no judicial oversight or relief? The ACLU is currently in the process of suing over that. What about the suspension of habeus corpus? What about the 100mile “constitution free” zone runs the length of the countries border? What about the illegal execution of american citizens of foreign soil without a trial? Nope. Nothing unconstitutional at all about Obama or the current administration.

  • Mojo

    Tuche! Masterful counter argument! Sure, you argued your points well. You were clear, cited your sources…how can anyone argue with that? You’ve convinced me to see things your way, sir. I’m a true believed. Hail, Obama!

  • Mojo

    Shhh! He’ll just tell you you’re wrong!!

  • Rob Elliott

    Not Obama directly, though it my be a violation, it is not something Other US presidents have done as well. The NSA over stepped, much as the FBI and CIA has overstepped in the past.

    But the intent of the action that lead to that spying in debatable. Nor did Obama him self take place.

    It is a problem yes. and this is the closest thing to actual violation (and may in fact break it) that there is.

  • Rob Elliott

    a Master in Business is not Constitutional Law, and it’s still an American degree.

  • Mojo

    So that must preclude me from being able to read it, understand it, and make constitutional law a hobby. Whatever. Gotta go, thanks for the chat.

  • Rob Elliott

    There was no chat. you copy and pasted stuff from a rhetoric website for the Right wing. In fact you just plagiarized Paul Skousen

  • Rob Elliott

    No need, you don’t understand them, they were just copy and pasted…

  • BrookaPea

    Are you shitting me? Do you live under a rock?

  • BrookaPea

    Mr. Elliott is beyond help.

  • harumph

    He should have just shot an unarmed kid. At least then he would have been able to keep his job.

  • Zos Xavius

    Obama has endorsed their actions. He is just as guilty as the NSA. The Obama administration is the one of the most secretive presidencies ever. What are they hiding from the public? The spying is likely the tip of the iceberg.

  • ksporry

    Actually, although the comment about the constitution is indeed something to loose a job over, if not get prosecuted over, the officers did keep their calm, and were fairly reasonable in their behaviour and attitude towards the subject. The subject may have been right about his rights to film wherever he wants in a public area, but his attitude was a tat offensive, and actually could have given the police officers sufficient cause for an arrest.

  • Yohannon

    Of course, they neglect to acknowledge that every one of those programs was set up by “The Shrub” and rubber stamped by a congress desperate to look tough on terrorism.

    I’m sorry, but if war criminals like Cheney and Bush weren’t impeached, arrested, tried and imprisoned, then you have no hope with Obama. But please, by all means, proceed. :)

  • Yohannon

    Unfortunately a likely outcome. You can’t even get a murder conviction when a cop shoots an unarmed suspect, face down on concrete with his hands cuffed behind his back, despite overwhelming video evidence (I live within a mile of that Fruitvale station), and even for an organization (BART police) that even the OAKLAND police department (you know, the one that’s under federal monitoring for civil rights violations?) things is a dangerous joke.

  • Mojo

    Yeah, I know. Yes, I coped them from someone else who is better able to articulate (and frankly, saves me time). And his only counter argument is “Nope! Not unconstitutional!” Geez…

  • http://reciprocity-failure.blogspot.com/ Stan B.

    I guess you missed the part where I clearly stated I’m not a fan of Obama…

  • Ken Maldonado

    So after watching the video. It obviously doesn’t show what led to this discussion but it seems like the guy recording is clearly looking for trouble as well as being difficult and argumentative. If the police ask you to identify yourself, then you should. And if they ask you what you’re doing there, then he is probably suspicious of you. And the cops have every right to be suspicious. That’s their job. Alleviate his suspicions, tell the cop “I’m so and so and I’m doing this” If it’s not illegal, he has no right to tell you you can’t do that. And once you’ve identified yourself and your actions the cop shouldn’t have any more reason to be suspicious of you, if he still gives you trouble, then start looking up attorneys. And the Police Director, I think he was totally being civil and genuinely explaining to the guy, yes, you have a right to be in a public building, but there are some places you clearly have no business just hanging around in like police stations and there are some things you can’t do, for instance smoking and every courthouse I’ve ever been to has not allowed cameras on premises with the exception of media. I’m a photojournalist and I run into cops all the time who seem to take authority into their own hands and watching this video, I think if the guy just calmly explained himself the police would have been fine with it. And that Constitution quip was clearly in a joking manner. It may have been a completely idiotic statement from someone with a badge to not think before saying it. His whole purpose is to enforce laws written on pieces of paper. But from the tone and the situation you can tell he was just frustrated with the guy. In a country where we have so many law enforcement officers who take things too far, I think this cop handled the situation pretty well in trying to explain to the man as best as he could, you can’t have cameras in a courthouse.

  • Darcy Faegre

    Mojo, I may not agree with everything you say but KUDOS for conducting a rational discussion in the face of name-calling and idiocy. My hats off to you.

  • Jack W Vance

    I HATE police, and I do not feel that President Obama is “the devil.” With that being said, I think that the dude filming this was just trying to cause problems. There is an edit about halfway through the video, which makes it seem as though something was removed. Somebody is just out looking for their 15 minutes of attention. People can be so stupid sometimes.

  • Jack W Vance

    Exactly. Thank you. People conveniently forget that the president is just the “face” of American politics. Or they missed their 7th grade Civics class on the days that matter.

  • Rusty Thomas

    Why don’t you do some research and then name me a president who “followed the Constitution” all the time? Any halfwit who knows American history knows that EVERY president has tried to expand his power he’s the nation’s chief executive. Just look at LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush. They all did the same things. It’s human nature, AND It’s built into the cake of our Constitution. Maybe the sacred document actually has a flaw or two.

  • Jack W Vance

    And every other source of “liberal media”, and get your news from the only true source of unbiased media, Mr Murdoch’s FoxNews!

  • Jack W Vance

    Lol! Please tell me you are under 40 years old, and not a virgin!

  • Jack W Vance

    They gunna take our JOBS!!! Lol

  • Rob Elliott

    I don’t need more.. you’ve done no research and copied someone who makes their living making claims like this to get people like you to make them money. You just CnP an unsourced article from a Right Wing nutter, who if a Republican was doing any of the things you listed, he’d be praising it.

    Search, before you speak. Basic research will show most of this is wrong. (great example is your Obamacare bit about it can’t be changed.. it’s be adjusted and modified several times.)

    Now in fairness, I was bored and trolled purely for my amusement.

    In the case of the one person that actually presented a legitimate argument I responded legitimately. To you.. there was no need. You don’t care about the truth. You would respond in the same way as I did if I were to give detailed accounts..

    The basic flaw is that you read and assume it is truth, without researching from multiple sources, and trying to find the least bias or both sides.

    When you only hear one side, over generations you end up like the people in Iraq and Syria who are perverting culture.. all because the US right decided to behave in a idiotic manner. They have used that to radicalize the right wing political environment, in the same way Al Qeada and ISIS have radicalized Sunni Muslims.

    If Glen Beck tried to organize an armed rebellion (he wouldn’t) There are plenty of people who haven’t bothered to research or educate them selves that have been radicalized sufficiently they would take up arms.

    Reading sites like the Daily Caller, is no different then reading Jihadist sites. they are equally untruthful.

    I’ve said what I will on the subject.

  • Rob Elliott

    Don’t forget Clintion, he bombed a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan (iirc) that was under cutting the high priced companies in the States in Europe.. (Even though no one had ever found evidence it was anything more then a plant making affordable medicine for people in Africa)

    Most American Presidents Commit some form of international crime while in office.

    I don’t agree, but as you mention Bush was allowed to do it (heck it was applaud by the Right) In fact PRISM started under Bush not Obama. (though it was renewed by him)

    More so Congress both parties were given briefings and no one said boo.

    So you can’t put it all on one man, who signed off to renew a 5 year old program that the intelligence committee was aware of.

    You really can’t go after Obama without going after just about every American President. and huge numbers of Congressmen through out history.

    (as a Canadian I think you should by all mean hold your gov’t accountable, actually take control of your political system, educate and vote in informed ways for the best candidate not just which colour you like better.

  • http://www.timfarrell.net/ Tim Farrell

    He’s already taking a $72K pension. He’s working an hourly job here.

  • Billy Barty

    Love this!

  • corvid

    So, yet another ignorant a-hole with an amazingly narrow world view, a child-like sense of righteous indignation, a complete lack of self-control, and a gun. This is news-worthy, how? This is related to photography, how?

  • Mojo

    No doubt it does have flaws – it was created by humans, after all. And certainly, humans do indeed try to grab power when possible. That’s what our check and balance system was supposed to prevent. However, we now have a bunch of Rinos in congress who won’t call the president on his crap because they are afraid of some imaginary political backlash, and a senate majority leader as Obama’s lap dog. Our check and balance system is broken. So are you using these previous presidents to justify Obama’s actions?

  • Mojo

    And yet you rush to his defense at every opportunity, and take every opportunity to back the previous president that you think people give a darn about. Strange.

  • Mojo

    Indeed.

  • Mojo

    I’m not really sure, but PetaPixel is slowly turning into a photographic MSNBC…