Is Filming a Police Officer a "Domestic Threat"? Austin Activist on Trial for Videotaping an Arres

A jury in Austin, Texas, is set to issue its decision today in a case that centers on a person’s right to film police officers...-

....He has been arrested several more times while videotaping officers and has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Austin Police Department

Is Filming a Police Officer a "Domestic Threat"? Austin Activist on Trial for Videotaping an Arrest

Democracy now! with Amy Goodman & Juan González interviewing Antonio Buehler about the case and a brief examination of his activism.

There seems to be not only some dangerous precedence being set in legal courts concerning an individuals basic rights but also a frightening glimpse of the reality we all suspect is that we actualy do live in a police state.

How long has "COPS" been on air? I suppose like most everything in this country, if it's profitable to the right people then it'll be made permissible if not already. We absolutely have the right to video anything within our rights and not infringing upon anothers. IMO and up until now it's been within our rights to record COPS.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

No, plain and simply.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Can a state jury trump a SCOTUS decision? Why is this guy even on trial?

a reply to: Dabrazzo

I could swear that the supreme court has already settled this issue, ruling that you can record the police. So how can this person be on trial for doing something that is not illegal? I swear the Texas justice system is stuck in the 1800s. I hope this person sues the state for abuse of power, illegal detention and violating their civil rights.

a reply to: ScientiaFortisDefendit

It would have to work its way back to the Supreme Court and establish new legal precedent for it to overturn a previous Supreme Court ruling. In the interim a conviction would most likley be stayed on appeal if there was one.

Austin cops are dicks. I've seen them drag a man wearing a back brace following back surgery out his car and rough him up. They were telling him to get out his car and he told them he could not stand up.
There was also an incident where a rookie female cop shot a kid in the back of the head because she thought "he was thinking about running." He was in cuffs and on the ground. She got a paid vacation and is back on the force.

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I could swear that the supreme court has already settled this issue, ruling that you can record the police. So how can this person be on trial for doing something that is not illegal? I swear the Texas justice system is stuck in the 1800s. I hope this person sues the state for abuse of power, illegal detention and violating their civil rights.

I believe you can record your own dealings with the police. I'm not sure you can video up close and personal a scene you just walked up on. If I get pulled over, do you have the right to walk up to my car and film the events? I don't think I would like it.

Looking a little deeper into the story, you find out that this jackhole was up in the officer's business and asking stupid questions MID ARREST of another person. Filming is fine, obstructing an officer from performing his duty is another.

This is a great example of Headlines trying to be sensationalist and get spread around as quickly as possible. Few people read the whole article or even if they do, even less do any research to validate the media's claim.

Media tries way too hard to be "viral" in this age, and it's happening to the detriment of journalism as a whole.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You are a mind trickster and propagandist for the system. You do no greater disservice than spreading your discordance to the people.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

originally posted by: Dabrazzo

A jury in Austin, Texas, is set to issue its decision today in a case that centers on a person’s right to film police officers...-

....He has been arrested several more times while videotaping officers and has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Austin Police Department

Is Filming a Police Officer a "Domestic Threat"? Austin Activist on Trial for Videotaping an Arrest

Democracy now! with Amy Goodman & Juan González interviewing Antonio Buehler about the case and a brief examination of his activism.

There seems to be not only some dangerous precedence being set in legal courts concerning an individuals basic rights but also a frightening glimpse of the reality we all suspect is that we actualy do live in a police state.

It doesn't matter what an Austin court thinks. Glik vs Cunniffe settled this in a 1st Circuit Federal Appeals court. It falls under the First Amendment. Texas is going to get sued for violating his civil rights and rightfully so. Federal rulings will always be considered before a state's ruling. Austin has no case. Period.

a reply to: Mensa180

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Can a state jury trump a SCOTUS decision? Why is this guy even on trial?

It wasn't SCOTUS, bro. It was a 1st Circuit Federal Appeals court. And the answer is still a big fat NOPE with regards to whether a state court supercedes anything Federal.
In this case, the activist was obstructing & not simply recording. That's the difference here. Obstruction is illegal, recording is not.

In practically every court of law a judge will side with the officer instead of the civilian unless there is hard proof in the way of video, pictures or overwhelming eyewitness testimony. If it ends up being a "He said she said" scenario the cop will come out victorious almost every time even if he is lying through his teeth.
So in my humble opinion we should be able to record cops whenever we want without fear of retaliation.

Cops have the ability to completely ruin your life even if you are innocent. An arrest even if false can cost a person their job, their reputation and their livelihood. Often the only thing that can prove ones innocence is video.
Record, Record Record!!!!

originally posted by: Mensa180

originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
a reply to: Dabrazzo

Can a state jury trump a SCOTUS decision? Why is this guy even on trial?

It wasn't SCOTUS, bro. It was a 1st Circuit Federal Appeals court. And the answer is still a big fat NOPE with regards to whether a state court supercedes anything Federal.
In this case, the activist was obstructing & not simply recording. That's the difference here. Obstruction is illegal, recording is not.

Right, and the SCOTUS declined the appeal, which is tantamount to upholding the prior decision.

With regard to the case, I am at work and admittedly not doing much diligence before opening my piehole. Kinda leaving that to the OP.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

A threat to their criminal mafia.

Quit, go away. Good cops? Irrelevant.

Defund them.

Okay, so he was charged with failure to follow a lawful order for not placing his hands behind his back while in the process of being arrested. Why was he being arrested and thus how was the order lawful in the first place? I know folks here are claiming he was obstructing but then where is the obstruction charge? Seems this does have something to do with him filming and they know they cannot charge him for that.

I see they claim he spit on the officer and tried charging him with felony assault of a public servant but that charge was tossed. No sure how spitting on an officer could be felony assault but perhaps that exposes the mentality of these particular officers.

a reply to: Dabrazzo

Bottom line is that if the arrest is taking place in a public space then it's perfectly legal to record an officer making an arrest.. the Obama Administration has made it clear that it's legal to film officers and federal courts have ruled it's unconstitutional to arrest someone for filming an arrest.

Despite this... police in many areas still arrest people for it, seize cameras, erase the contents .. etc ..

Regardless.. anything that takes place in public can be filmed or photographed without permission... if you can see it in public, you can film/photograph it.. the only exceptions are filming/photographing someone through their windows when they are engaged in a "personal/private" act.. new laws have been introduced to stop that.