More Harassment Courtesy of the N.Y.P.D.

Last night I approved a series of comments regarding my recent interaction with New York’s Finest. Among them was this turd posted by “MASKEDMAN”:

Ahhh Miss Heather
But if your house was broken into by someone who had been casing your neighborhood, so upset you would be at the Police Department for not doing there job.
How you would say they were at a donut shop or such, instead of properly investigating a 911 call of a suspicious person.
You say “Was I dressed in a manner that would be construed as menacing? How would the police know that? Because if they thought that, they would be profiling ooohhhh and just think of the story you would have then!!!!
Give the Officers a break really.

To wit I replied:

I have a better idea: they should cut us a break and (as I said in the comment previous to yours) go after real criminals.

It’s easy to criticize when you have not had an experience like mine and I hope you never do. Your cynicism saddens me. Nonetheless, I wish you happy and healthy holiday season.

“MASKEDMAN” got diarrhea of the mouth— or would that be of the keyboard? Either way it is fear-mongering bullshit:

I find it very funny
People riding their bicycles on the sidewalk, people drinking in public. all against the law.
How can you be upset about getting a summons for beaking ther law?
Don’t know if anyone has kids, but have you ever tried to walk on the sidewalk with a stroller while bicycles wiz by you it’s not fun.
Laws are there for a reason, if you want to play, you have to pay my friends.
Oh how everyone would complain if they were sleeping, and some people were outside drinking beers and making noise keeping them up. But I’m sure you weren’t making any noise, right?
Maybe the cops should just do NOTHING.see how you like it then.

Cut you a break for what Miss Heather? Just don’t investigate the complaint. You can’t be serious

Thinking this guy was just some angry jerk-off, I humored him:

If you are going to be abusive, Maskedman I am going to revoke your account. I have gone through enough hell this week. I am the victim in this situation. Not you and certainly not the NYPD. Simple as that.

Here is his piquant reply:

Well Miss Heather, I’m sorry you took me as abusive, I was simply asking a question and not trying to be abusive.
But, if you think that is abuse, NOW I can understand why simple questions by the Police to understand your actions causes you to call the Officer names like Barney Fife. You’re way too sensitive.
By the way, you should really THANK the Police for the job they have done there in the 94 Pct. THEY are the reason you can walk around that precinct looking at decorations, instaed of looking at hookers, pimps and drug dealers (as it was years ago). But instead you get mad at them for simply doing their job.
Victim? Victim of what?
You really have to think about this Miss Heather.

PS Please don’t assume you know me, or know my experiences, as I quote you “when you have not had an experience like mine”. I was pulled over by the Police all the time when I first started driving because I looked so young. They would pull me over, ask me for ID, question me, then send me on my way. I didn’t mind, ya know why? because I wasn’t doing anything wrong, I had NOTHING to worry about and they were just doing their job. Have a very Merry Christmas Miss Heather, and enjoy your New Year.

I did “think” about this. I also looked up “MASKEDMAN’S” I.P. address. Guess what? He and the N.Y.P.D. are one and the same:


“MASKEDMAN” writes:

Please don’t assume you know me, or know my experiences…

The sentiment is mutual: I do not want you to know me or my experiences. Ever read the Bill of Rights “MASKEDMAN”? I suspect you haven’t so here it is via Wikipedia:

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

First Amendment: Establishment clause, freedom of religion, speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government. 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.

Second Amendment:
Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment: Protection from quartering of troops. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment:
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment: Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: Trial by jury and other rights of the accused. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment: Civil trial by jury. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment
: Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment: Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment: Powers of states and people. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Now that my history lesson is over, I’ll tell you something: I forwarded “MASKEDMAN’s” IP address to a lot of people. Here’s what one anonymous tipster had to say:

Good for you for putting word out.

I think he is probably harmless — the kind of guy who won’t hear anything critical about the police force. Interesting, though, that he is spending considerable amounts of time reading and posting to blogs from his office.

Have you seen this? The NYPD censoring this Wikipedia page with more or less the same IP info and location. (They also apparently notified the NYTimes–see Wiki comments.)

also naming Sara Berger & male colleague (albeit a different one) in NDSS room 701
maybe Sarah and the lads are just “techs.” But the room appears to be the “we watch the internet” room. Who knew?

I guess it’s probable that’s the location of NYPD’s IT and they’re not really in room 701.
It still raises the question of why maskedman isn’t doing some work.

Isn’t it nice to know your tax dollars are paying “MASKEDMAN” to surf the Internet and harass civilians who have the temerity to stand up for themselves? The timing of “MASKEDMAN’s” missives is also interesting: they came to pass after a lot of negative press via the ‘blogosphere’ and on THE SAME DAY Channel 12 contacted the 94 Precinct regarding my “incident”.

Miss Heather

Comments

5 Comments on More Harassment Courtesy of the N.Y.P.D.

  1. Steve of Astoria on Sat, 22nd Dec 2007 10:43 am
  2. The death of common sense is an ongoing occurrence. It happens every time we stop caring or can’t see right and wrong. Whether it’s because we have no time for it, or because we need a law for every little nuisance. Just because a ticket/fine can be given out for something, doesn’t mean that it should be dispensed. In missheather’s case she was only inconvenienced but if the city could’ve given her a ticket, would it? You can answer that yourselves. The good thing that came out of it was the exposure to the critical censorship of free thought. We must remind each other that things are not as they seem.

  3. jackfalcon on Sat, 22nd Dec 2007 4:48 pm
  4. Hi there, your post is pretty interesting, to say the least…though after recently being bumped and nearly knocked down by some idiot on a bike in chelsea (not a delivery guy) I have no problem with the enforcement of the sidewalk riding statute. Also, I wanted to submit my humble blog for consideration by you and your readers, I’m in boerum hill, but was living on Kingsland all summer until the house i lived in was sold…thanks!

    http://www.jackfalcon.com

  5. nycphotorights on Sun, 23rd Dec 2007 3:49 pm
  6. I find this comment by MASKEDMAN to be quite disturbing:
    People riding their bicycles on the sidewalk, people drinking in public….all against the law.
    How can you be upset about getting a summons for beaking ther law?
    Don’t know if anyone has kids, but have you ever tried to walk on the sidewalk with a stroller while bicycles wiz by you…it’s not fun.
    Laws are there for a reason, if you want to play, you have to pay my friends.
    Oh how everyone would complain if they were sleeping, and some people were outside drinking beers and making noise keeping them up. But I’m sure you weren’t making any noise…right?

    These are all things that are illegal. Is he implying that there are laws against photography as well? If that is not what he meant to imply then why the analogy?? Strange indeed!

    Photography is LEGAL regardless of what the cops think. The Village Voice has an interesting article on this very issue. Click here to read

    And the mayor wants to promote tourism… Newsflash to Mayor Bloomberg: TOURISTS LOVE TO TAKE PICTURES!!

  7. missheather on Sun, 23rd Dec 2007 4:49 pm
  8. There are a lot of things that are disturbing about “MASKEDMAN’s” comments, nycphotorights. First and foremost (in my mind, anyway) is the fact he saw fit to post them in the first place, e.g.; he took the time to register on my site, and in so doing, gave me his IP address (which belongs to the NYPD). Was he doing this while “on the job” or is baiting/harassing bloggers, in fact, what he is hired to do?

    Think about it.

  9. Spanky on Wed, 26th Dec 2007 10:55 am
  10. The police don’t give a shit about the Bill of Rights.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

You must be logged in to post a comment.