It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

This might be the last police video from North Carolina you'll ever see

page: 1
15

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I hope this is not true but I have a feeling it is and will come to pass.


That's because a new law that goes into effect on October 1, exactly one week after the Scott footage was released, is set to block the public from obtaining similar kinds of recordings from body cameras or dashboard cameras.

Sure that sounds about right... All us pedestrians cannot evaluate with our own eyes what we might see in a video so just trust MSM and the police who never falsify a report or commit an illegal act. (sarc)



It's about "respecting the public, respecting the family, and also respecting the constitutional rights of the officer," he said.

"One viewpoint of a video doesn't often always tell the whole story," McCrory said. "The angles can make a difference, and [you're] not hearing [the sound] often in the video, so that [adds to] the complexity. The video is one piece of evidence. We have to be careful."

I can agree with that ... videos do not always have the right angle or the sound to make a fair evaluation of a situation..... not to mention what led up to the event..

The way I read the article the only reason the police video was released in the first place was because the protesters were chanting "no tapes; no peace."

I dunno folks... Many of us complained that the police needed video cameras they could not fiddle with which is a two edged sword... Protects them from outlandish claims and makes them hopefully think before they do something stupid....... Unfortunately there are always ways of legally getting around something ..... Just pass a law that says "Yep we have the video but you cannot see it!" Kinda defeats the whole purpose IMO..
edition.cnn.com...
edit on 727thk16 by 727Sky because: ..




posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky


Double edge sword for certain.

You have the court of public opinion. Then you have the Rule of Law run by the Justice system. Both are out of control and corrupt!



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Sometimes their videos don't show what they would like the story to be, so.....



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Nooope. Sorry. If you want to be a cop, you are a public servant and need to be under a microscope. If you do something wrong, we need more than just your word or that of fellow officers and officials who've been known to lie to protect you. You wanna be a cop? Deal with it or go find another job.
"If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" ...What? That doesn't apply to you?




I dunno folks... Many of us complained that the police needed video cameras they could not fiddle with which is a two edged sword... Protects them from outlandish claims and makes them hopefully think before they do something stupid....... Unfortunately there are always ways of legally getting around something ..... Just pass a law that says "Yep we have the video but you cannot see it!" Kinda defeats the whole purpose IMO..


Or try the Illinois Solution. No body cameras and they made it a felony to record police. One man was facing 75 years in prison for videoing officers from a distance. It's since been modified, but the law is very poorly worded and can be confusing to some.
edit on 27-9-2016 by DAVID64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I really despise that these types of stories do not mention the actual bill (so that we could google it) or quote it so that we can determine the verbiage of the law for ourselves--we are basically forced to trust CNN's interpretation of the law, and that's a hard thing to do these days with CNN (trust them).

Does anyone know the bill's number so that we can look at what it actually says?



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

HB 972



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I find it amazing how video evidence is always so important and credible when used against anyone other than police. Be it traffic cams, CCTV, personal dash cams in vehicles, etc. They seem to work everywhere else in the world but apparently when they're used to watch police in their duties then they're unreliable. While at the same time apparently what is more reliable is taking a cops word for what happened.

The BS in them using that excuse goes beyond belief. Who are you going to believe??? A cop or your lying eyes.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Zarniwoop

Thanks!

So, basically, you have to be involved and recorded on the video or audio, or be a representative of someone whose image or voice is captured on the recording in order to even be able to request seeing/hearing the recording. Anyone else has to sue the PD and get a court order for the footage.

And even then, there are provisions to keep them from disclosing thing footage:


(f) Release of Recordings; General; Court Order Required. – Recordings in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall only be released pursuant to court order. Any custodial law enforcement agency or any person requesting release of a recording may file an action in the superior court in any county where any portion of the recording was made for an order releasing the recording. The request for release must state the date and approximate time of the activity captured in the recording, or otherwise identify the activity with reasonable particularity sufficient to identify the recording to which the action refers. The court may conduct an in‑camera review of the recording. In determining whether to order the release of all or a portion of the recording, in addition to any other standards the court deems relevant, the court shall consider the applicability of all of the following standards:

(1) Release is necessary to advance a compelling public interest.
(2) The recording contains information that is otherwise confidential or exempt from disclosure or release under State or federal law.
(3) The person requesting release is seeking to obtain evidence to determine legal issues in a current or potential court proceeding.
(4) Release would reveal information regarding a person that is of a highly sensitive personal nature.
(5) Release may harm the reputation or jeopardize the safety of a person.
(6) Release would create a serious threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice.
(7) Confidentiality is necessary to protect either an active or inactive internal or criminal investigation or potential internal or criminal investigation.
(8) There is good cause shown to release all portions of a recording.

The court shall release only those portions of the recording that are relevant to the person's request, and may place any conditions or restrictions on the release of the recording that the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate.


This law really sucks--I think that paragraphs (f)(5) and (f)(6) are going to be abused constantly as a reason not to release the video or audio to the media. This type of legislation sucks--I fully understand the need to protect civilians and officers from ignorant people out to do them harm before all the facts are known, but giving this many reason to deny the release of video to the public is the epitome of opaqueness.



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Oh I'm sure this WONT cause more problems....



posted on Sep, 27 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Wow. Just wow.

That's sure to increase trust in law enforcement... no one would possibly suspect that they're just trying to bury evidence... not at all...



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea


That's sure to increase trust in law enforcement... no one would possibly suspect that they're just trying to bury evidence... not at all...


Yep how many times have we pedestrians heard if we have nothing to hide then our emails, telephone calls, cell phone videos et al being captured and monitored should not bother us ? Transparency should be a two way street IMO



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I wonder if this law will be challenged in court. Just because some lawmakers voted that police recording are not public records, and are therefore exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or Sunshine laws doesn't necessarily make it so.



new topics

top topics



 
15

log in

join