Well, as far as the Boston Cop that released the internal photos of the
pig dog being arrested, I say so what. Those pics have never been
"private". Even long before digital, I had a friend who worked as a
civilian in a Police Photo lab servicing NYC and surrounding areas, and
I wouldn't even tell you the pictures he brought home copies of. All I
can say is if you have seen it on CSI, it's out there "in real life" in
just as vivid color, and graphic reality... This guy didn't do anything
cops haven't been doing for decades.

On 7/19/13 3:22 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
Well, as far as the Boston Cop that released the internal photos of the
pig dog being arrested, I say so what. Those pics have never been
"private". Even long before digital, I had a friend who worked as a
civilian in a Police Photo lab servicing NYC and surrounding areas, and
I wouldn't even tell you the pictures he brought home copies of. All I
can say is if you have seen it on CSI, it's out there "in real life" in
just as vivid color, and graphic reality... This guy didn't do anything
cops haven't been doing for decades.


You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

I'll bet you just love looking at photos of people who have sustained
horrific injuries, beatings, shootings, don't you?

On 7/19/13 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


FOI requests are not always granted. I don't know if the photos are part
of a "public" record. Again, he could have been ordered not to release
them.

In article ,
says...

Well, as far as the Boston Cop that released the internal photos of the
pig dog being arrested, I say so what. Those pics have never been
"private". Even long before digital, I had a friend who worked as a
civilian in a Police Photo lab servicing NYC and surrounding areas, and
I wouldn't even tell you the pictures he brought home copies of. All I
can say is if you have seen it on CSI, it's out there "in real life" in
just as vivid color, and graphic reality... This guy didn't do anything
cops haven't been doing for decades.

Cool story, bro!

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.

Not true in the least little bit. Not everything is public record and
available under the FOI laws, to start with. THEN add to that the little
fact that state and local governments are covered under the act and you
get the answer to your question.

http://tinyurl.com/ksl9mqz

On 7/19/2013 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


Well, to make sure you all know I pay attention. That was just my
opinion. And before you all get loogied... Here are the facts:

The information may be available during trial or trial prep, or through
basic FOI... However, if they are considered vital or part of an on
going investigation, he will certainly suffer penalty for that. Also as
suggested above, it is most likely just against policy and he will take
a hit for that too. To reiterate, my first comments was just an opinion
based on my feelings about the case, not necessarily fact... Later

On 7/19/2013 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:13:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/19/13 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


FOI requests are not always granted. I don't know if the photos are part
of a "public" record. Again, he could have been ordered not to release
them.

Again, why not? Police reports are public records and this is part of
the police report.


If they are part of a "current ongoing investigation".

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:13:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/19/13 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


FOI requests are not always granted. I don't know if the photos are part
of a "public" record. Again, he could have been ordered not to release
them.

Again, why not? Police reports are public records and this is part of
the police report.

Again, because FOI doesn't apply to state or local jurisdictions.

In article ,
says...

On 7/19/2013 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 16:13:56 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 7/19/13 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


FOI requests are not always granted. I don't know if the photos are part
of a "public" record. Again, he could have been ordered not to release
them.

Again, why not? Police reports are public records and this is part of
the police report.


If they are part of a "current ongoing investigation".

Oh, ****. Listen. THE FOI isn't applicable to state and local agencies.
Period

In article ,
says...

On 7/19/2013 4:08 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:55:49 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:



You can say whatever you want, but if the guy was ordered not to do so
or if it is departmental procedure not to do so, he was in violation and
subject to disciplinary action.

Isn't that a public record? If MSNBC(or anyone else for that matter)
filed an FoI request they would have had to give them up anyway.


Well, to make sure you all know I pay attention. That was just my
opinion. And before you all get loogied... Here are the facts:

The information may be available during trial or trial prep, or through
basic FOI... However, if they are considered vital or part of an on
going investigation, he will certainly suffer penalty for that. Also as
suggested above, it is most likely just against policy and he will take
a hit for that too. To reiterate, my first comments was just an opinion
based on my feelings about the case, not necessarily fact... Later

Nothing but insane blabber.....