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.

 

Cops + Cameras = Bad Attitude. WHY?

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Cops + Cameras = Bad Attitude. WHY?



I've seen this subject discussed in other threads, but not AS a thread. Why is it when a citizen films a cop, the cop is either grabbing for the camera, insisting for the person to stop filming, or making very threatening remarks. What's up with THAT? Is filming them a crime? I'd really like to hear from the LEO's out there. The inside skinny, if you will.


The second one is the long view of the beginning of the first one.

What is going on?




posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 


In some states, the cops are misusing the wiretapping statutes to persecute those with the audacity to film them.

I discussed this in this thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I have a friend who actually made a point of installing a camera in her car in the event that she was pulled over by the cops in a "routine" check.
She got pulled over one day cos the cop was bored and she duly informed him that he was being filmed and there is a camera in her car. He asked her why she had a camera in her car and why she felt the need to flm him (already on the defence) and she advised him that it's her right to record any event that took place on her private property, ie her car. The cop had simply pulled her over to check the car for "road worthiness" cos she drove an old crap heap.

But he was not happy one bit that he was being taped even though he had a camera in his car and was recording the entire exchange! How is it different that she had a camera in her car? The trouble is that cops have some degree of control over content captured by the police camera and can edit it in favour of the police, whereas if they are recorded by someone else, they can be portrayed acting unprofessionaly and with misconduct.

I think everyone should have a camera in their car as a form of defence. You never know when you might need it.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I think you hit the nail on the head....they have no control of your camera.......and being control freaks it drivess them nuts. It all changed a long time ago, it's about control and revenue generation.......the can't control your camera, so they arrest you and collect revenue.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


If your phone has a video setting, get familiar with it. Get a larger SD card so you can take longer videos and keep your phone fully charged.

And always have your digital camera in the car and know where the video function is. You never know when something "interesting" might happen.

Authorities have nothing to fear from the camera when they actually "serve and protect".

Film LEOs when they are hero's as well. Many of them are!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Ok, Im just going to comment on the motorcycle vid. No lights, no siren, NO BADGE!!!! For me that means no stop. Yes the biker was breaking the law in the vid (if indeed all was real), but before the 'cop' drew his weapon he should have produced ID, bad move on the 'cops' part. In my state we have concealed carry laws and if I possesed this liscense (I dont mind you) I may have shot this d-bag. He was playing John Wayne and should be removed from the force and put on the rubber gun list. Im sorry but in that situation the 'cop' would have been better off just to shoot the biker . Thats just not good. Am I seeing this wrong? Please someone enlighten me if I am. Let me make clear, I am 1000 percent pro-Law Enforcement. Even plainclothes guys have a quick attatch badge accessible at all times. Even though he didnt draw down on the guy he brandished his weapon, that tells me if he had the soundness of mind to not point his weapon then he should have had the soundness of mind to properly identify himself by producing at least a badge. The cop knew he was wrong, but had already commited to a wrong move. He got to excited. He used his sidearm as a badge. BAD. There was absolutely no reason for him to draw his weapon. The bike was already stopped.


This is really off topic , isnt it?


This comment was written before I watched the news report , so I could try to be objective...Ive watched the news report now, and this motorcycle rider should be pan fried. Put the officer at a desk for a while, do some review on procedure, then back to work. His muzzle discipline was fine, he just got excited.

[edit on 4-9-2010 by psyko45]

[edit on 4-9-2010 by psyko45]



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyko45



This is really off topic , isnt it?



In the thread I linked above, we were discussing how police persecute people for videotaping them using wiretapping laws.

The story was about how that vid got the bike rider arrested for felony wiretapping.

A few posts in, I posted the vid for reference. Most of the rest of the thread was a discussion of that vid. I derailed my own thread.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 


I don't think you are off toipic at all.......something I wondered, if the guy on the bike freaked when the cop did the abrupt cut off move and began to open his door....what if he'd have dumped the clutch and hit the door pinning the cop. I can see something like that happening....really bad things could have happened the way the cop handled things........so what do you think is the motive for the charges involving the camera?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
I bring my Canon Powershot with me everywhere I go. I take pictures of just about everything. I take photos of the police whenever I can. I've never caught them doing anything they shouldn't. My camera does excellent video. Right now I'm just taking still photos. Generally I take pictures of them when they're stopped at stoplights,parked on the side of the road waiting for speeders any where I can find them. I tend to keep some distance between me and them, I use the zoom function a lot. I was at a family reunion today, I took 240 pictures using two digital cameras and guess what? Three of the people I took pictures of were cops. Two cousins, their cop husbands, and my step sister who's also a cop. When I go by our local police station,I've some times taken pictures of their parking lot where they keep their cruisers and boats, just to see if there's anything new there. The way I look at it, if it's in a public place, there's not one thing they can do about it.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 


probably because of the way the cop handled himself. A scumbag...I mean smart attorney could probably successfully level charges against the officer and at the least get the ticket thrown out. The guy on the bike deserves a big ticket if not some jail time for his endangerment of the public combined with his showcasing the act on youtube, clearly showed no remorse for his actions. This is probably the reason for the charges, to get the biker at least some of what he deserves.

The cop was wrong the way he handled things, but the biker was more wrong for his stunts.

This is why a LEO must allways be aware of the higher standard that they represent.

The cop put himself in way to much danger for a trffic stop that was pretty much under control. Since there was a marked unit behind the bike there wasnt much of a flight risk. The unmarked guy shouldnt have even gotten out of his vehicle...just should have used it for an obstruction. It sucks for him...but he should have waited. Let the uniformed officer do the challenge and he should have served as back up. This is a really tough one. It just looks too much like cowboy antics to the untrained or cop-hating eye.

I hope the biker gets his liscense taken away and does some time.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 09:53 PM
link   
If the Police want to take this stance .... Fine!


It's just going to have to work the other way too.


They can be charged for recording members of the public without our consent using their dash cams and audio recorders.

I say record everything!

With technology today there is no reason that a person cannot have a camera and mic mounted in their car that uploads live to the internet where it is also archived for later use in court or on Youtube.

When governments hide things it's because they know that if we the people discover it, they will be held accountable.

Screw 'em all.

Record them!



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
They don't wan't the negative publicity if they're caught doing something wrong. Like this case in OP where the charges were pressed only after the youtube video was released. He had gotten a fine for his motorcycle madness and was pretty much in the clear already. Right after the video went online thought they searched his house and confiscated computers etc. and then slap him with a felony charge.
This is one of those states that has a one party consent wiretapping law. Problem however is that the police and some DA's are abusing it. It says that if you don't have expectation of privacy then it doesn't apply. Even some DA's from the same area agree but this one is an a-hole who just likes to be buddy with the cops.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Cops are not witnesses.
All of their training, rules, and regimentation
makes them this way. Even the forms they have to fill out are
structured in such a way that it filters the information into a format that
the Judge, or Attorney can use to prosecute justice in the way the law is structured.

A camera in a civilian vehicle does none of this, and it puts the officer
in the position where their ability to remember and witness can
be challenged by an unbeatable device.
And they are not even trained
to witness, just to be
observant.


David Grouchy



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Thanks for the heads up on your thread. I'll read it today. I read your OP and the comment IN the OP by a blogger who says the cop has no reasonable expectation of privacy in public is spot ON! And I'll bet you this case will hinge on exactly that.

reply to post by psyko45
 


Your original analysis was exactly what I was thinking. A completely aggressive entry on the part of the cop. The biker started backing away because it happened so fast. I saw in the news vid that there was a shot of the car behind him, but just from those bits, did he really know that was a traffic stop? In my book, undetermined. The biker got a ticket and went on his way. The trouble didn't start till AFTER he posted the vid.



Put the officer at a desk for a while, do some review on procedure, then back to work. His muzzle discipline was fine, he just got excited.

That's quite the understatement. It was a traffic stop! Gun first? Really?? I think it was VERY unprofessional of the cop. Considering that there WAS another cop BEHIND the motorcyclist, it looked uncalled for to my eyes. I don't think 'muzzle discipline' should be an issue in this traffic stop, because 'gun first' is crazy. But that's MY opinion.
But what I find most interesting is how much your opinion changed after seeing the news report. I'm really glad you commented before you watched the news.

So now we know CT (or NH) has bogus wiretapping laws.

What about the other 49?



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Oh wait!! It gets better!!! Check this out!


Looks like the "LAW" IS for the people, this time. Bet they're going to be changing this one soon. Turns out it DID hinge on the privacy issue!



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I reckon there's no case because the excited leo entered a situation where a camera was already recording, just like every time they enter a shop or road with cctv. Dumb and dangerous law any way citz should make it an issue and either amend or repeal it.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThatDGgirl
 



I guess that means Im not Internal Affairs material. Arent most analysis fluid in nature? Isnt that why courts deliberate?
[edit on 5-9-2010 by psyko45]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by psyko45]

[edit on 5-9-2010 by psyko45]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Even the judge in this case is like WTF?
PINAC



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Even the judge in this case is like WTF?
PINAC


My thoughts exactly.

Though I can see what the leo was thinking in drawing the gun as the biker clearly reversed surely a presumed further attempt to drive off, from the leo's pov, doesn't warrant a shooting, more evidence of a comply or die mindset?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by psyko45
 




Arent most analysis fluid in nature? Isnt that why courts deliberate?


Yes and yes! That's why I said I was glad you wrote your comment they way you did. Maybe it's because I'm a woman that the LEO's actions at the actual stop really freaked me out. But, as it turns out, none of that stuff was the issue in court.

But after that is all said and done, I think it's possible that the single biggest reason the cops don't want to be filmed is because of stupid stuff like that. One guys gets carried away on his own adrenaline and a few days later 600K+ viewers on youtube have made him the laughing stock of the PD.
How embarrassing for him!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join