Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Police State - Illegal to Record On-Duty Police Officers

page: 5
89
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
FWIW the 30$ pen cameras on ebay are useless don't waste your money.

What subtle types of cameras are there that take decent video?




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ..5..
FWIW the 30$ pen cameras on ebay are useless don't waste your money.

What subtle types of cameras are there that take decent video?


I find that if you put your cell phone in your front shirt pocket you generally get good audio (used to do it at school),
I know you asked about video, but it may be useful sometimes...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Come on people!

Once again, the OP has submitted a sub par post providing poor information and stirred up a hornet's nest of police bashers that feed off of each other's hate spewn into the website.

The law in Maryland is not specifically for Police Officers. It is for everyone's protection from illegal wiretap and videotape including you.

Maryland wiretap laws are two party consent. The police must have a court order to listen to or record any converstation. The same rules should and do apply to everyday people as well.

When it comes to videotaping, consent is also required unless it is obvious you are recording. For example, the news recording an event is ok because it is obvious they are recording and if you do not want to participate, get out from in front of the camera. Secretly videotaping you and your girlfriend having sex and then showing it to your buddies is illegal because your girlfriend obviously did not consent to the taping.

Do you remember the Fox News people that infiltrated ACORN and videotaped their conversation in Baltimore? The Fox News people got jammed up on the wiretap and videotape laws.

The cases that the OP is probably referring to is either the State's Attorney or Police Officer charging based on the existing laws not any that are specific to Police Officers.

Do I agree with prosecuting people because they caught Police Officers doing something wrong? Absolutely not.

BUT, it should be the responsibility of the individual with the camera to record the ENTIRE incident, post it and allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions as to what occurred. NOT leave the camera off when the a**hole starts fighting with the police, then turn it on when the police start to win and call it police brutality. Is this fair to the police? Absolutely not.

This is probably why they found themselves prosecuted. Not because they caught the police doing something wrong but because they tried to put their own spin on it and an existing law applied.
edit on 4-1-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: correction



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by ararisq
 

BUT, it should be the responsibility of the individual with the camera to record the ENTIRE incident, post it and allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions as to what occurred. NOT leave the camera off when the a**hole starts fighting with the police, then turn it on when the police start to win and call it police brutality. Is this fair to the police? Absolutely not.

This is probably why they found themselves prosecuted. Not because they caught the police doing something wrong but because they tried to put their own spin on it and an existing law applied.


Not only that but in some cases you might get police officers who are part of special-operations sections who work undercover when not in uniform. And footage of one of these officers can fall into the wrong hands and be used for harmful purposes.

Case-in-point. I have two bosses at work who are former sheriffs having worked for the narcotics division. A lot of the people they confiscated drugs from were mafia-related. The FBI knocked on their door one day and told them to be aware that they confiscated pictures and video footage of them from people with connections to the Mexican mafia who had plans to assassinate them,



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Yes I think everyone should be able to record there life 24/7, usin a small hidden camera, like into a lap top and or live stream to remote location so they can't get your video.

Another thing what happens when these police officers go in to a location that has video going 24/7 like in a 7-11, what they have to shut of the video.

I hope who ever passed this law gets Raped by some pervert cop, and really gets it in the end, rear that is.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
Another thing what happens when these police officers go in to a location that has video going 24/7 like in a 7-11, what they have to shut of the video.


This is different. I doubt they're going to do that.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


I don't buy it. The cops have even stopped 3rd parties from taping. If you are in "public" you have no right or reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a free speech issue. The MD law and Clinton or Acorn involved people going under cover or by phone to recoed someone who is NOT IN PUBLIC. Funny if a police officer see something in "public" he can act no matter waht but an individual person can not record what they see or hear. ...straight unconstutitional if pushed SCOTUS



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Well if it maybe considered a consolation Maryland was the last and one of the only states in the union to remove the "religious qualification" for jury duty and or testifying in a court of law.....when Madalyn Murray O'hair was being tried for having attacked 4 officers in her own home she was not even allowed to testify in her defense and she fled to Hawaii and thus was how Baltimore got rid of it's atheist in it's midst, she was literally harrased in so many ways and the courts were just as much involved as the police.....people talk about Maryland like it maybe something different from the south , but it often seems worse than Boss Hog to me, then it also has this green fascism overlay in combination with the legal police state tactics and nasty taxes, etc it seems no wonder that people have been fleeing to less regulated states.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I'm not sure if I should be asking this question without sounding stupid, but. Does this mean no more COPS T.V show? Bad Boys Bad Boy's whatcha gonna dooo.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marked One

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by ararisq
 

BUT, it should be the responsibility of the individual with the camera to record the ENTIRE incident, post it and allow the viewers to draw their own conclusions as to what occurred. NOT leave the camera off when the a**hole starts fighting with the police, then turn it on when the police start to win and call it police brutality. Is this fair to the police? Absolutely not.

This is probably why they found themselves prosecuted. Not because they caught the police doing something wrong but because they tried to put their own spin on it and an existing law applied.


Not only that but in some cases you might get police officers who are part of special-operations sections who work undercover when not in uniform. And footage of one of these officers can fall into the wrong hands and be used for harmful purposes.

Case-in-point. I have two bosses at work who are former sheriffs having worked for the narcotics division. A lot of the people they confiscated drugs from were mafia-related. The FBI knocked on their door one day and told them to be aware that they confiscated pictures and video footage of them from people with connections to the Mexican mafia who had plans to assassinate them,



Okay some of what you said is understandable, about officers or agents being targeted, but if the drug problem was resolved to begin with, by means of other ways then locking everyone up and having such strict drug laws, we wouldn't have such high inflated drug prices and wouldn't encourage drug cartels by giving them so much money. Zero tolerance is obviously not the answer.

Secondly, whether people are cops or not, they are still humans. They still make mistakes, they're still out for themselves,( not all people) but its part of our nature. When this stops happening, I will put trust in the government and cops to be 100% honest and there will be no need for self defense of videotaping.
Just because they're cops doesn't mean they're good people or honest.

Do you recall "the woodcarver" incident??
www.abovetopsecret.com...

some Cops edit or destroy there video taping to cover up the crime.
Remember the video of the drunk women arrested, who was sexually abused by police, and covered up?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mastermook
Okay some of what you said is understandable, about officers or agents being targeted, but if the drug problem was resolved to begin with, by means of other ways then locking everyone up and having such strict drug laws, we wouldn't have such high inflated drug prices and wouldn't encourage drug cartels by giving them so much money. Zero tolerance is obviously not the answer.


Well for starters I agree with legalization of marijuana. As for other drugs like coc aine, methamphetamine, heroine, etc. THOSE need to stay illegal. So you're right about resolving the drug problem at the root.

Not only that but we also have Mexican Mafia spying on border-patrol agents with video-cameras with the sole purpose of targeting them for assassination. Human-trafficking = about as much big money as the drug-trade.
edit on 1/5/11 by Marked One because: re-arranging something



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
BTW: My two bosses didn't just have pictures of them confiscated by the FBI. There were pictures of their houses too among other things.
edit on 1/5/11 by Marked One because: fixing spelling



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I'm aghast!

You mean to tell me I can't watch COPS on TV anymore?!

Or am I taking this out of context?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Marked One
 


Fyi taking pictures / video of undercover cops isn't a crime. Even if it could end up used wrong. They have no basis for confiscation either. Planning something criminal however is but that is entirely different matter.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Grab some popcorn and a beer - Long response ahead.


Originally posted by ararisq
I've been aware of this issue for a while but I had not realized how far it had progressed until I just read the following article from last November.


Respectfully it does not look like you have been following it closely since the article referenced for the TSA is Nov 2010, and the remaining info about the 3 states is incorrect and has since been clarified by the courts and the AG. Only Illinois is being stupid, and will loose their court battle over audiorecording officers.

For once the ACLU got this right.


Originally posted by ararisq


Three of these states have taken this recording restriction a step further. According to McElroy, Illinois, Maryland and Massachusetts have specifically made it "illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists."


This information is not up to date - Here are the current updates:

Source

Massachusetts - In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record anybody without their consent, but there is no law against openly videotaping anybody in public with or without their consent, including cops. In fact, charges have been dropped against people who have been arrested for videotaping cops in public in Massachusetts.



Maryland - In Maryland, state police and a certain prosecutor treat it as if it is illegal but another state attorney as well as the attorney general disagree that it is illegal to videotape cops in public. The debate should be settled entirely by the time Anthony Graber goes to trial on October 12. Also, the ACLU, which is backing Graber in this case, is asking the law to be further clarified.


That leaves us with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois who want to learn their lesson the hard way

Illinois - That leaves us with Illinois where Radley Balko reported that it is illegal to audio record cops, even if they happen to be in public with no expectation of privacy.

Fortunately, the ACLU is now trying to change this law after filing a federal lawsuit in Chicago Wednesday to challenge the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, according to the Chicago Tribune:


The case dealing with Illinois is still ongoing, however I cant see it being upheld since its flaw is the fact you have no expectation of privacy in Public.


Originally posted by ararisq
In this article, Are Cameras the New Guns, the author comes to the following conclusion:


In short, recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent. The only people who seem prone to prosecution are those who embarrass or confront the police, or who somehow challenge the law. If true, then the prosecutions are a form of social control to discourage criticism of the police or simple dissent.


The above is a generalization and does not reflect law enforcement as a whole, where we have no issues with being recorded so long as it does not interfere with what we are doing, and does not place anyone in danger (stopping on a highway to record an accident). We take notice since cell phone guns are real and keep a mindful eye since its an officer safety issue.

The last part of that is flawed as it is once again a generalization and not supported by the evidence. These laws / interpretations of law have been reviewed and clarified, cases dropped etc. The social control comment is laughable for the sole reason it was able to be written into an article critical of law enforcement and government, yet no one has been arrested and charged for expressing that view.


Originally posted by ararisq
My question to ATS - is how did this happen? I remember the arrest of the motorcycle driver for illegal wiretapping because he had a camera on his helmet and posted his confrontation with an unmarked / unidentified police officer on YouTube but the state's Attorney General, I believe, said it was utter non-sense. These stories though make it clear that it has progressed even farther and that depending on where you are, you might have no defense to police abuse, nor could you come to another person's aid by way of posting the abuse without facing prosecution and abuse yourself.


The motorcycle incident occured in Maryland, and as the info I posted above shows, has been resolved and the law clarified so it cannot happen again. As far as the cop drawing his gun while in plain clothes - yeah, he is a moron for failing to ID himself, for making contact in the manner he did, and multiple others are idiots in the chain for the way it was handled prior to higher ups finding their common sense.


Originally posted by ararisq
As an American it is impossible to know the laws of every locality and state, especially when tens of thousands of new laws are being passed each and every year. How can I find out if I am passing through an area where the act of holding a video camera can get my face shoved in to the pavement, harassed and abused for hours, and then my civil rights stomped on by a judge, sending me to prison for 1-3 years? At least the NAZI's put up posters explaining new laws - these people don't even bother educating the public because their enforcers cannot even keep up - they apply the law selectively when it suits them.


Oh good.. A Nazi comparison.. I was aiting for this to make its way back into conversation. The simplest answer - Caveat Emptor - May the buyer beware. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. With that being said cops are suppose to exersize common sense, as are the PA's office. Pulling the overly generalized statement back from the edge, you can record in public with no issues, and since you cited 3 states, and i corrected 2 of those as being changed, that leaves 1 state, meaning the question / statement from above is a mute point.


Originally posted by ararisq
This is a clear sign that we are living in a police state. I just don't understand in what world these laws make any sense and what excuses did they use to get it passed? I mean these laws have been through legislative committees, voted on before both sides of the state congresses, signed by a governor, and upheld by the court system! Where was the public on these issues or were these passed under cover of darkness?


Fear mongering is as old as comparing cops to Nazis due to ignorance about the Law. Aside from Illinois, what "laws" are you talking about? Aside from Illinois, your argument above is without foundation and not supported by evidence or fact.


Originally posted by ararisq
I believe we need a new civil rights movement to put a stop to the forward onslaught against our civil liberties. We need a civil rights movement to amend the constitution and to reassert that we do indeed want to live by the precepts set forth in the bill of rights and that we are a free people and that we wish to uphold liberty above all else including security.


Or..... we can let common sense prevail and stop with the overly dramtic rhetoric on a topic that is being made into something its not in this thread. 1 state - Illinois, is the holdout, and will loose in the end. For every one incident that shows up on youtube that records the police and makes news, there are hundreds of other incidents that get posted with no problems.


Originally posted by ararisq
We need to reassert that the government:


Hmmm ok...


Originally posted by ararisq

  • cannot introduce free speech zones,


Care to clarify this one? If you ar referring to speech occuring in public its already protected. If you are referring to speech inside buildings your constitutional right to free speech is curtailed by the propert owner if they so choose. Why? because its private property and the person who owns that property does not need any reason at all to tell a person to leave and not come back.


Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot conduct warrant-less wiretaps or other invasions of privacy,


  • These laws are in place - 50 U.S.C. § 1802 50 U.S.C. § 1809 specifically FISA. I am not a fan of warrentless wiretaps when it comes to private US citizens. The Supreme Court has upheld monitoring of foriegn powers while in the US. To date the USSC has not had a case presented to it that specifically deals with the constitutional issue of a warrantless wiretap and a US citizen (4th amendment violation).

    Federal circuit courts have started to take on these cases, and will eventually make it to the USSC for a final ruling.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot deny citizenship based upon successful completion of mandated "civilian service" to the government as stated by Rahm Emanuel,


  • Agreed on this one. The reference for others is from a book called The Plan. I m not a fan of linking a blog, but this is accurate in describing it.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot forcibly take our blood,


  • When you get your drivers license you agree to this. If you do not want your blood drawn, dont drive a motor vehicle that requires a license. If we are referencing the no refusal DWI checkpoints, then please do some more research in that area as there is more to it than just a simple the cops are taking my blood.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot force injections upon us,


  • Not sure what you are referring to. If its in reference to medical / psychiatric, its covered under State Laws (and lays out specific criteria). If this is in reference to something else, please clarify for me.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot deny travel to citizens of the United States by requiring us to relinquish our inalienable right to be secure in our person and our possessions,


  • Travel both within and crossing State Lines is a constitutionally protect right. The manner in which you travel is not. If you dont want to give info or agree to the implied consent law for driving a vehicle, then dont. You have the option of a bus, plane, train bicycle, horse, Shoe leather express etc...


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot interpret probable cause to mean whatever they want it to mean and that illegal detainment and failure to prove probable cause is a punishable offense,


  • Not sure in what context you are using this in. Law Enforcement has 2 steps, and probable cause is one of them. The other is called reasonable suspicion. In order for us to file charges, we either issue a citation or submit a PC statement to the PA for review, who then makes the determination on whether the case goes forward. Since PC statements are affidavits we can go to jail for falsifying those, and any cop who does that should go to jail. If this is in reference to something else let me know. If its not, then we agree.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot threaten arrest due to "public disturbance" unless the disturbance has been reported by other citizens and qualifies as an actual disturbance,


  • There is a difference between a disturbance and a protest, as well as what constitutes each. A disturbance is classified as something non peaceful, something that can cause an affront or alarm to a person (everyday and not LEO or other trained professional). A disturbance involves an incident occuring that does just that, disturbs.

    The ability to protest is alive and well. The exception to this, and this is where the "permits" come in, is when you want to protest while using a public right of way (street). Absent the permit you are blocking a public right of way, which means while you, as the public want to use it to protest, others who dont agree with or dont care about the protest are blocked from using the road themselves.

    Easy solution is to use the sidewalks, and make sure you are not in a public right of way or on private property without permission. As far as a disturbance needing to be called in by other people is interfering with our requirement to protexct society as a whole (we can have another topic entirely on this area so bear with me). In general the only thing a LEO cannot initiate on his own, and will vary from state to state, is they cannot have their peace disturbed. Courts (at least the ones that cover my area) have stated LEO's should have thicker skin due to the nature of our jobs, and because of that, we ourselves cannot have our peace disturbed.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot declare martial law to violate civilian rights,


  • Supreme Court has upheld the Governments ability to declare emergencies when the situation moves beyond the ability of a locality to do their jobs. Dont get me wrong, I do not agree with a declaration of Martial Law in the sense its being referred to here. However, when something occurs that disrupts, on a massive scale, life, government operations, food, public safet etc something needs to be in place.

    The role of Law Enforcement is not to protect the individual, but to protect society as a whole. An example is if something major happens, the government cannot expend resources to try to get food to grocery stores. Instead, it would be centralized and any affected person in the area would need to come to one location to get food. As sinister as people want to make it out, its done to concentrate resources where needed to end the incident as quickly as possible, and not to instill a poilice state (as its being made out to be).


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot confiscate firearms because a state of emergency has been declared,


  • 100% agree, and the NOLA had their asses handed to them bu the US Supreme Court, and rightfully so. I would of liked to see the person who made that decision be charged with a civil rights violation lawsuit (42 USC 1983 for violating their 2nd amendment right).


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • can never confiscate firearms period,


  • Ehhh.. If you want to break the law by using a gun in a crime that places others in imminent danger and fear for their lives, why would we want you to have a gun again? If a person has psychiatric issues, and is diagnosed as such and behaves in such a manner where they are not taking proper meds, I am not sure I would feel safe around that type of person if they are armed for obvious reasons.

    Was their wiggle room here, or are you wanting a blanket law here?


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot declare war without prior-congressional approval,


  • completely agree - at the same time though if we are going to return to the constitution, then the war powers act needs to be chucked since it was passed by congress and technically infringes on the Constitutional rights of the President to be Commander in Chief.


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot deploy or use armed force against a foreign nation without an explicit declaration of war,


  • Posses Commitatus is already in place and has been upheld by the Supreme Court going back to the mid 1800's. National guard units are not Federal and answer to the Adjutant General of their State, who answer to the Commander in Chief of the State - The Govenor. Since they are under State control, they can be used to supplament law enforcement without violating posses commitatus.

    Using military in a civilian law enforcement capacity is probelematic since the laws that govern Military and those that govern civilians are different.

    However, if an incident occurs that, once again, is massive Law Enforcement will not have adequate resources to go around to do the jobs thats need. So if you are preventing the natioanl guard, what do we do?


    Originally posted by ararisq
  • cannot use armed forces in the United States in civilian operations or against civilians,


  • Again I refer you to Posses Commitatus. President Bush played with fire on this one when he was talking about using Federal Military units to arrest suspected terrorists in New York (if I remeber right) and all of his advisors warned against it. Thank God he at least listened to them there.

    Out of curiosity though, what if a city requests it? This occurs near Camp Lejeune NC, and is erroniously reported as martial law when in fact its training. The town and the camp work with each other, where the camp allows the police to come train there, and the town lets the military train in the city (and only practices with the citizens who agree - if they dont, they arent bothered or invovled in the training).


    Originally posted by ararisq
    I'm sure for each of the hundreds of thousands of laws which have pushed us closer to the police state we can come up with counter-language for constitutional amendment.


    Can you list to 100's of thousand of laws you are referring to that creates this police state?

    I admire the concern, and agree with some of it. My issue though is your view is to strict in my opinion, and does not allow for the unknown x factor that no lawmaker could forsee. I am not a fan of changing the Constitution as some have suggested, but at the same time our founding fathers could not fathom who the world would be 25 years, let alone 300 year later.

    I agree we need to review and update laws to better place them in line with common sense and adapt them to whats going on today, however the position you are taking will do exactly what you are already accusing the government of, and thats createing a police state.

    The constitution if our guilding principle, however its not a suicide pact either. Long story short until a person can hed down to the local poll and walk across the water, we are human and will make mistakes, from the people to the cops to the PA, to the judges etc etc.

    The world is not as Black and White as you ae making it out to be, and while arguing that to much ambiguity is dangerous, the exact same holds true with there is no room to account for the X factor.

    As a side note I am not looking to fight with you or anything like that. I am just providing my opinion as a public servant and am trying to bring some clarification to what you are referencing here. I look forward to your rebuttals.
    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 06:54 AM
    link   
    reply to post by areyouserious2010
     


    Thank you for the common sense. I agree.

    The fundamental question is should the public have a right to vrecord law enforcement while they do their jobs. The answer to that is yes, so long as its done in a manner that does not pose any danger to anyone, oncluding that of the person recording, and so long as it does not interfere with the officers duties or interfere with an investigation.

    The example I see most common is the incident where the news media stopped on the highway during a bad accident to do their thing. They stopped on the insde lane nearest the median, the cameraman was paying attention to the reporter and not traffic zipping by behind him, and the reporter took it upon himself to try to interview some of the soldiers who stopped to assist when the accident first occured.

    Media was told to leave and move elsewhere, and the guy refused because he was "media".

    Can someone show me where media qualifies as an emergency vehicle, allowing them to disregard traffic laws? When the guy tried to interview the solderis, he was technicallytampering with a witness, as well as tainting other potential evidence because people in the area could hear the responses from the soldier, and when people overhear others, they have a tendancy to repeat it as if they were the ones who saw it.

    If you are the person being stopped, you do NOT have a right to record the encounter. Under the law you are technically beinging seized under the 4th amendment, and as such you do not have freedom of movement, or the ability to refuse the officers directives so you can record.

    The notion cops are hiding stuff is funny since we are wired from head to toe with audio and in some cities video. The newer tasers have auido/video recording on them. Duty weapons are being fitted in some states with audio/video as well.

    Are there bad cops? Yup no argument there.

    Are there bad people? Yup no argument there either...

    Common sense is what is needed, with the understanding by cops that we will be recorded, and the understanding by onlookers that if we focus on you, then you did something that grabbed our attention and diverted our focus.

    Common sense people... Thats all it takes.



    posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:00 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
    reply to post by areyouserious2010
     


    I don't buy it. The cops have even stopped 3rd parties from taping. If you are in "public" you have no right or reasonable expectation of privacy. This is a free speech issue. The MD law and Clinton or Acorn involved people going under cover or by phone to recoed someone who is NOT IN PUBLIC. Funny if a police officer see something in "public" he can act no matter waht but an individual person can not record what they see or hear. ...straight unconstutitional if pushed SCOTUS


    You are correct for the most part. However, if a 3rd party acts in such a manner that cause us to focus on them, it is obstruction. We usally will tell the person where they need to be to get out of our way, and 9 times out of 10 they comply and no other issues arise.

    However the right of a 3rd party to record a situation is negated by the investigation itself. If they are acting in such a manner that causes a diversion of our attention, places other in danger, tampers with a witness etc its a problem.

    Aside from a few moron cops, we dont care if you are recording, provided it does not interfere with whats going on, places anyone in danger and does not interfere with evidence or witnesses.

    So yes to an extent its a free speech issue, however that free speech does not trump the Polices obligation to perform their public duties and nor does it trump the rights of the victims involved.

    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:02 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by loveguy
    I'm aghast!

    You mean to tell me I can't watch COPS on TV anymore?!

    Or am I taking this out of context?


    Funny you bring up cops, and I am glad you did because it jogged my memory. Back in the day when COPS first came out, you would see Camera crews following cops into the house and waht not. There was a law suit that evolved from one of those incidents, and the courts held that camera crews could not follow the cops into the house without the permission of the people who live at the house.

    The reason? It was interfering with the victims rights and the manner the police did their job.



    posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:22 AM
    link   
    One of the reasons we are leary of "innocent bystanders"

    ***************Graphic Video******************
    WARNING

    www.youtube.com...

    WARNING
    ***************Graphic Video******************


    In this case, they responded to a store that was being robbed. While dealing with the lone suspect, there were other people present who were not involved.

    Turns out this was wrong.


    A pursuit ends in a parking lot, caught from 2 different dash cams. This is to emphasize that the camera does not always show the entire story.

    WARNING
    ***************Graphic Video******************

    www.youtube.com...

    WARNING
    ***************Graphic Video******************


    The videos below are non graphic - NSFW - language

    A traffic stop in Kalamazoo Michigan turns ugly, as the innocent 3rd party onlookers attack the officer.


    Cops dealing with a fight end up getting attacked when they try to arrest a suspect.



    My point is to try to show why we are leary about people who are not involved in calls hanging around the area. As with my argument about a few examples of bad cops, this is a few examples of bad 3rd party involvement.

    We arent concerned so much because of the recording. We are concerned that it might move beyond the uninvolved 3rd party to an invovleed 3rd party against us.
    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
    edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 07:37 AM
    link   
    Here are some statistics about the dangers of distracted drivers. I bring this up to show the danger invovled in being a 3rd party and recording actions of the Police.

    Just because the Cop knows you are there, and you know you are there, does not mean the people driving by rubbernecking know oyu are there.

    Distraction.gov


    Did You Know?
    Research on distracted driving reveals some surprising facts:
    •In 2008, almost 20 percent of all crashes in the year involved some type of distraction. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - NHTSA).
    •Nearly 6,000 people died in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted driver, and more than half a million were injured. (NHTSA)
    •The younger, inexperienced drivers under 20 years old have the highest proportion of distraction-related fatal crashes.
    •Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
    •Using a cell phone use while driving, whether it’s hand-held or hands-free, delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)



    Overview

    Driver distraction could present a serious and potentially deadly danger. In 2008, 5,870 people lost their lives and an estimated 515,000 people were injured in police-reported crashes in which at least one form of driver distraction was reported on the police crash report. Distracted driving comes in various forms, such as cell phone use, texting while driving, eating, drinking, talking with passengers, as well as using in-vehicle technologies and portable electronic devices.

    There are other less obvious forms of distractions including daydreaming or dealing with strong emotions.





    new topics

    top topics



     
    89
    << 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

    log in

    join