Congressman introduces bill to protect citizens who videotape cops

reply to post by ..5..


You would probably like this:
Spy Cam MP3 Player

Here is my personal solution:
PI Camstick

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"YOU are actually creating a dangerous environment if you go about your filming in the way that I imagine you "vigilantes" do."

Are police officers also creating a dangerous environment by having cameras mounted on their cruisers or by openly filming demonstrators at protests? Or does your warped sense of reasoning only apply to the public?

think they don't freedom isnt free

We need more elected representatives such as him.

Some here argue that existing laws do allow citizens to video tape police officers in their course of duty.

But the question is, why then are the police claiming it is a offence to video-tape them at work? Who created such laws? The Police Commissioner? The local sheriff? The abusively power mad clowns themselves?

If these police officers in the course of their duty are there upholding transparent laws, why then the fear of being watched or video taped, unless they are NOT upholding laws during work, an authority unto themselves above the law?

And then arrests these taxpaying citizens and made them pay legal fees and waste time to get the charges written off?

Are we living in a Police State today? If so, just say it outright publically and boldly, and the masses will know what to do.

you know what it is

I am for this as too many people have been falsly imprisoned/arrested/detained due to doing nothing more then videotaping LE in the commission of thier duties.

Although I'm not a cop but know enough someone asked what is " Interference With The Discharge Of Duty" and that is simply put it is if a cop is on the scene of a suspected/confirmed crime scene LEO is in the performance of their duties and you cannot interfere with an ongoing and active undercover investigation (Regardless if your the target or not) as that will hinder the investigation. Plus we all must remain proactive and not be threatening to a cop. No lauging while taping as that can and will be taken as an act of hostile intent.

You can however film a vid if you see LE, EMS, or FD on your block. But are strictly forbidden from posting a video if the subject is deceased or if it is too gory and graphic for cable tv. Just do not interfere as it will put you in potential danger and be bad. Be safe, alter, aware of your entire surroundings 24/7/365. Listen always to you intuition and gut as if it's kept you safe in the past don't not listen to it now.

When it comes to determining which side of the fence a video posted will fall on (Good, (no bad stuff, TV-PG/PG) Bad, (blood, insides hanging out. YV-MA/R)) depends mainly on the content and the correct venue to air it.

The globally accepted template to use in regards to what is and is not "tolerable" by at least 80% of those who are positioned to potentially view it is the International Television Content Ratings System.

en.wikipedia.org...



YouTube is the perfect format to upload and view any videos of this nature and can be seen later down the road as the preferred and recommended viewing site. If I'm not mistaken but there's gotta be at least 1 site on the web who focuses on PD videos and the like. There's millions of Military sites so logically speaking why wouldn't there be a group of site dedicated to LE related vids?



[edit on 18-7-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Although I'm not a cop but know enough someone asked what is " Interference With The Discharge Of Duty" and that is simply put it is if a cop is on the scene of a suspected/confirmed crime scene LEO is in the performance of their duties and you cannot interfere with an ongoing and active undercover investigation (Regardless if your the target or not) as that will hinder the investigation.

I've seen Maricopa Sheriff's use this excuse also. Claiming that anyone in one of their intimidating swat masks abusing someones rights is "under cover". You can't simply claim someone is undercover because you don't want them to be filmed.

If police are going to start using that line, we should hold them accountable and if an LEO can't be verified as actually being undercover. Then fire whichever person lied to a citizen. (But we can't do this thanks to Police Unions)

Plus we all must remain proactive and not be threatening to a cop. No lauging while taping as that can and will be taken as an act of hostile intent.

They take anything as hostile intent. If they think it's hostile someone is laughing at their lies and ignorance of law then so be it. They already decided to uphold the law or not, laughing won't change that.

You can however film a vid if you see LE, EMS, or FD on your block. But are strictly forbidden from posting a video if the subject is deceased or if it is too gory and graphic for cable tv. Just do not interfere as it will put you in potential danger and be bad. Be safe, alter, aware of your entire surroundings 24/7/365. Listen always to you intuition and gut as if it's kept you safe in the past don't not listen to it now.

Anything that can be witnessed in public, may be recorded and displayed. FCC broadcast laws for decency have no bearing on the internet. You should simply not post a deceased person out of respect. However there are no laws against it if filmed in public.

When it comes to determining which side of the fence a video posted will fall on (Good, (no bad stuff, TV-PG/PG) Bad, (blood, insides hanging out. YV-MA/R)) depends mainly on the content and the correct venue to air it.

All your suggestions are based around broadcast news, most of this doesn't apply to uploading LEOs to YouTube. (All depends where you upload it. But there are no laws against it)

It's a resolution.

reply to post by dainoyfb


Neat toys.
Is there one that points where you are looking? With my camera skills I would wind up filming everything but the target.

It is a very good idea.

The conundrum is that it will be the cops enforcing it, yes?

Profound conflict of interest anyone?

Maybe after citizens rise up & lynch a few of the worst cops they might begin to straighten up & start to fly right.

reply to post by ..5..


The MP3 player is worn like a necklace. There is one in the form of a pen that can be clipped to a breast pocket and a couple built like sunglasses but they are really geeky looking. That's about as good as it will get for aiming unless you want to wear a sports cam which is worn as a head band and is much more conspicuous.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


I look at it more like. If the officer is doing his do and someone films him pressing someone else up out of line. The officer then can't turn to the guy with the camera and start pressing him up. Is what I got out of it...it's a tricky language that legalese, but I understand it most of the time lol...

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Yes it seems that it is the cops and who are mostly at fault in this matter. DA's have send memos to cops that this charge cannot hold in court so don't use it. The cops responded with something like "it's the officers interpretation that matters". I have yet to see any court uphold such a charge, if there is any could someone post links pls?

I wish there was some consumer level device that can fit in the front of a baseball cap which is inconspicuous and not some garbage 20 frames per second framerate.

I see in the future a small devices where the optical lens is separate from the "recording body" (such as a laptop or default device) sending the footage wirelessly. This allows the lens to be placed in the front of a baseball cap or something and the recording body receiving the data elsewhere, such as in a bag or something.

In the event of a police searching and finding the recording body in your possession (on your body or in your bag) have the recording body send footage broadcast live to the net or somewhere else during recording. Hopefully anything bad done by the cops would have been caught already on footage and they cannot do anything about preventing the footage being public.

In such an environment where ppl have such devices I suspect the law will make it illegal to have them or give police the power to ask if they have recording devices on their person. . . anyone remember where all phone cameras are by law to make a loud clicking sound because some pervert was taking pics of women? Well they'll just do that to make it hard for the public to have such devices on them. They might go for the "filming in cinemas" copyright angle as a way to ban these devices too.

ABOUT DAMN TIME!! I'm tired, of seeing "MY COUNTRY", become a "two-layer" society. The RULERS, and the SERFS.
The U.S. Constitution, EXPLICITLY GUARANTEES, EVERY citizen, EQUAL PROTECTION, under the law.
Lwtting the pigs spy on us, 24/7, and ARRESTING US, for videotaping THEM, abusing their power?? PRE-POSTEROUS!!!! Hanging, is too good for them!

Take a deep breath- that is REVOLUTION, you smell!!!!!
Make Mr. Jefferson, PROUD!

reply to post by igor_ats


I'm sure, such a unit is available- for enough money!
As for mis-using it, THAT happens, with ANY useful tool. That is when THE LAW, SHOULD be involved- when Copyright, is being infringed, NOT when some testosterone-charged, 300# pig, is beating an old woman, to take her LEGAL gun! (I'm referring to the Katrina debacle, of course).
Good Luck, America!

This shouldn't even be a debate. Sorry but we need a bit of a history lesson here. All of the following can and should be used in all forms of our law.


1st amendment. 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

4th amendment.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.

5th amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

9th amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My Favorite
10th Amendment. 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.

There is no debate, the police have no leg to stand on. We have been asleep to long and have allowed too many things pass by.

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Although I'm not a cop but know enough someone asked what is " Interference With The Discharge Of Duty" and that is simply put it is if a cop is on the scene of a suspected/confirmed crime scene LEO is in the performance of their duties and you cannot interfere with an ongoing and active undercover investigation (Regardless if your the target or not) as that will hinder the investigation.

I've seen Maricopa Sheriff's use this excuse also. Claiming that anyone in one of their intimidating swat masks abusing someones rights is "under cover". You can't simply claim someone is undercover because you don't want them to be filmed.

If police are going to start using that line, we should hold them accountable and if an LEO can't be verified as actually being undercover. Then fire whichever person lied to a citizen. (But we can't do this thanks to Police Unions)

-- You or anyone is not allowed to circumvent any undercover investigation, but typical undercover investigations occur in the shadows.

Plus we all must remain proactive and not be threatening to a cop. No lauging while taping as that can and will be taken as an act of hostile intent.

They take anything as hostile intent. If they think it's hostile someone is laughing at their lies and ignorance of law then so be it. They already decided to uphold the law or not, laughing won't change that.

-- We are expected to remain cool, calm and collected and not be harrassing any cops while filming. If you film a peaceful demonstration this protection will enhance that.

You can however film a vid if you see LE, EMS, or FD on your block. But are strictly forbidden from posting a video if the subject is deceased or if it is too gory and graphic for cable tv. Just do not interfere as it will put you in potential danger and be bad. Be safe, alter, aware of your entire surroundings 24/7/365. Listen always to you intuition and gut as if it's kept you safe in the past don't not listen to it now.

Anything that can be witnessed in public, may be recorded and displayed. FCC broadcast laws for decency have no bearing on the internet. You should simply not post a deceased person out of respect. However there are no laws against it if filmed in public.

-- There was this ambulance mechanic who in 07 was crushed when the ambu he was working on shifted and killed him and there was a photographer from the local paper there and I told the photographer to not take a pic of the dude on a gurney and stretcher as it would've been in bad taste and seeing how the family had yet to be contacted prohibited him from having his pic on the stretcher from appearing on the cover of the local paper.

When it comes to determining which side of the fence a video posted will fall on (Good, (no bad stuff, TV-PG/PG) Bad, (blood, insides hanging out. YV-MA/R)) depends mainly on the content and the correct venue to air it.

All your suggestions are based around broadcast news, most of this doesn't apply to uploading LEOs to YouTube. (All depends where you upload it. But there are no laws against it)

YouTube has a policy forbidding vids in cases where someone was killed but in cases like 9/11 that policy is nill as it is in the realm of the public domain. Decency and common sense should dictate what vids are posted and are not posted on any vid sharing site. The indivudual site also retains the right and authourity to either ban the vid as well as informing LE when a questionable vid is posted hence why on marijuana related vids most hide thier identities so that they can't be prosecuted.

Originally posted by brutalsun
This shouldn't even be a debate. Sorry but we need a bit of a history lesson here. All of the following can and should be used in all forms of our law.


1st amendment. 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

4th amendment.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.

-- This only has legal standing in places where privacy is guranteed and does not apply to any street or obviously public place like a demonstration.

5th amendment. No person shall be held to answer for a 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 offense 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.

9th amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

My Favorite
10th Amendment. 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.

There is no debate, the police have no leg to stand on. We have been asleep to long and have allowed too many things pass by.

Answered in quote.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


My point is, if one goes into a situation intending to cause a confrontation, what merit does the video possess of the law subdueing them? If one is inciting a mob and creating violence for the sole purpose of filming 5 minutes of police forces subdueing them...who is actually accountable?

reply to post by mryanbrown


The police have a responsibility to maintain public safety...

They have every right to subdue individuals inciting a riot and subverting public order...

They have zero agenda aside from making sure people aren't raping, robbing, murdering each other. They don't get paid enough for the service they do. A bunch of people with camera's inciting a situation in a particular area is going to result in police action. A situation that again, they don't get paid enough to deal with!