It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by prexparte
Originally posted by DaWhiz
Originally posted by ararisq
reply to post by MisterMiyagi
I'd like to know what compelling reason was given from these legislatures when passing these horrific bills in to law. It is as if the camera really is the new gun.
its so they can do whatever they want to you and all you have is your criminal word against they who would be gods.
Welcome to your new world people. You hated the Constitution so much you lost it.
So now your only defense will be lack of witnesses.
Not one american I can think of hates our constitution. how did you percieve such an obscene idea?
Originally posted by MisterMiyagi
So let me get this straight.
Law abiding members of the public can be filmed in stores , on the streets and driving their vehicles on the highway and just about anywhere as they go about their daily lives but those same law abiding citizens cannot film on duty police officers that may abuse their powers as witnessed in the Rodney King scandal in order to protect themselves when confronted by abusive police officers in similar circumstances?
God help us all.
Originally posted by Xcathdra
The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.
Originally posted by surfnow2
reply to post by ferumbra
you are entitled to your opinions but based off what i have read he was justified in his actions.
ive been there in his shoes before. you have to remember there is only one officer and 3 more of his friends
this is a serious officer safety issue. just because they are standing around doesnt mean one of them wont assault the officer.
what would you have done if you were the officer and he locked on to your legs?
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.
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."
According to the source article, the states of Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts have made it illegal to record an on-duty police officer even if it is necessary to your defense, and even if it is a public place where there is no expectation of privacy. That policy may eventually extend to the TSA which will eventually be deployed at malls, train stations, bus depots, and highways; although they have already drafted their own "law" to exclude videotaping when it interferes which their procedures, in other words - at their own discretion.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
We need to reassert that the government:
- cannot introduce free speech zones,
- cannot conduct warrant-less wiretaps or other invasions of privacy,
- cannot deny citizenship based upon successful completion of mandated "civilian service" to the government as stated by Rahm Emanuel,
- cannot forcibly take our blood,
- cannot force injections upon us,
- 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,
- 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,
- cannot threaten arrest due to "public disturbance" unless the disturbance has been reported by other citizens and qualifies as an actual disturbance,
- cannot declare martial law to violate civilian rights,
- cannot confiscate firearms because a state of emergency has been declared,
- can never confiscate firearms period,
- cannot declare war without prior-congressional approval,
- cannot deploy or use armed force against a foreign nation without an explicit declaration of war,
- cannot use armed forces in the United States in civilian operations or against civilians,
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.