Police State - Illegal to Record On-Duty Police Officers

speaking of miranda alot of people dont know that i dont have to read you your rights at all
the only time i have to read you miranda is when i am going to ask you an incriminating questions. biographical or statisitcal information isnt incriminating unless it is directly related to the crime.

reply to post by surfnow2


funny comment.

what we can see here is just one stupid cop. he overreacted, but he is stupid enough to forget about earth and milky way so he did what he did. what is most frightening is how this cop is please excuse me for saying retarded. look as he hits like a girl, gzz, with his every move you can say that something is not right with him.

and yes, much more cops will abuse their rights, simply because they are blessed to do that. it is hard to believe but is true, they will abuse their powers. are there good cops? yes, there are good people, but cop is not a person.

this is simple game for mind. find 100 people, 20 of them will have unlimited power. then ask others do they like this 20, or they fear them or hate them? and most important, will that 20 persons abuse their power? of course they will. this is even proven by psychology.

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?

reply to post by ararisq


This makes me so mad! I wonder why the ACLU has not taken this up the court system. Surely this kind of law at its core is not in sync with the Constitution and the First Amendment in particular?

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.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac01c10e472a.jpg[/atsimg]

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?

Abortion issue = Removal of the 14th!
Voting = Removal of 13, 14, 15 and 19th!
Freedom of Religion = 1st!
Guns = 2nd.

During all of these topics I have seen people say remove the law. That is the destruction of the Constitution. It doesn't matter that they "don't know what they do" when they fight to remove it - the point being they are so in love with their issues they hate the law and that law is its Constutional Statute.
OK hate was strong. But what would you say? They want to love us into a new world order?

wrong forum.. my bad

reply to post by ararisq


These days are truely terrifying, we must join together and stop this tyranic state from occuring. Find out more about the police state at infowars.com. Take action, tell your neighbors even the ones you don't like, tell everyone, this needs to be heard. We need to act now before it is too late!

www.youtube.com... Related. In this case its 2 cops from the same department making threads to someone taking video in public. Both clearly identifiable. I hope they get a good talking from their superiors about this.

reply to post by PsykoOps


I watched the video, and I am apalled! Just "another" clear sign that we need to video all the leo activity we can. Thankyou Psy... as much as this disturbs me, I feel the more I see footage like this, that will allow me to form a more educated "opinion", on the state of failure our entire judicial system really is. From the top down.

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.

excellent post!!.....................it would seem that every store that has video surviliance, which police officers are often in would be in violation of these laws??

do you think we will see walmart prosecuted for filming an " On- Duty Officer????????????"

Such a law would violate the equal protection clause of the US Constitution (a document that police should hold dear, should they not?)....the only exception would be the recording of an undercover officer where it might endanger his life as well as his mission.

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.

You don,t find it rather convienent that the suspect just happened to be grabbing the officer in the only place not visible by the camera????

Also, did you not notice that the officer took the baton out immediately upon pulling the suspect from the car???

I believe it would be safe to say that you may not be viewing this from a position of concerned citizen, but, rather from the position of a "Police Officer" who tends to believe one of his own as opposed to the "accused".

Just my observation.

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?

PLEASE, show us the proof of this man locking onto the officers legs?????????????????

You won't seem to accept what you can view with your own eyes, so please do not expect us to believe something that was stated by the off-duty cops employer................did you ever consider that the employer had to say something to defend the off-duty cop, you know, so, he could avoid being sued, seeing as he employed him????

again, if you have PROOF that the officers legs were locked onto, I would love to see it.

Originally posted by ararisq
Source

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.

Oh, how we've lost our ways. How easily we cower in fear only to relinquish our very freedoms in exchange for promises that couldn't be kept even if the mouths from which they were coming were actually honest mouths. And then we quickly raise our flag, not knowing for which it truly stands, and cry out our patriotic devotion for the flag and the country for which it stands, all the while having no real support for what that country was to stand for.

Liberty, oh where art though.

There is no justification for this law, although I am not sure if it is unconstitutional.

And here we go again...

PINAC

They never seem to learn.

reply to post by MisterMiyagi
Thatts just what i was thining..its ok for security cameras to tape us at traffic lights, stops, stores ect..but taping a cop exposing his genitials, in m city last year, to apulled over female, or beating someone senseless on offical police work time, is illegal?
mew world order is coming faster, day by day.

_________________

If I had a videotape of a crime being committed,
the video could not be admissible as evidence if it
involved a police officer ?
Our courts and politicians have become traitors to justice.

_________________

Again again and again. This time the footage is going to be used for suing the cop for 500k$. Too bad it doesn't come out of his own pockets.
PINAC

www.concealedcameras.com...

Here's the solution, kids. Wear in good health.