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.
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?
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by ararisq
We need to reassert that the government:
Originally posted by ararisq
- cannot introduce free speech zones,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot conduct warrant-less wiretaps or other invasions of privacy,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot deny citizenship based upon successful completion of mandated "civilian service" to the government as stated by Rahm Emanuel,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot forcibly take our blood,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot force injections upon us,
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,
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,
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,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot declare martial law to violate civilian rights,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot confiscate firearms because a state of emergency has been declared,
Originally posted by ararisq
can never confiscate firearms period,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot declare war without prior-congressional approval,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot deploy or use armed force against a foreign nation without an explicit declaration of war,
Originally posted by ararisq
cannot use armed forces in the United States in civilian operations or against civilians,
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.
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
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?
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.