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.

 

75-Year Sentence for Taping the Police? The Absurd Laws That Criminalize Audio and Video Recording

page: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


I think you are confusing Jury Nullification with State nullification of Federal Law by the State. Jury nullification is when the body of evidence is ignored during a trial, up to and including ignoring instructions from the judge.

Jury Nullification

Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case.


Directed verdict by Jury nullification

In law, a directed verdict is an order from the judge presiding over a jury trial that one side or the other wins. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary. After a directed verdict, there is no longer any need for the jury to decide the case.

A judge may order a directed verdict as to an entire case or only to certain issues. While the motion is not often granted, it is routinely made as a means of preserving appeal rights later.

In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury. In a civil action, a related concept to the directed verdict is that of a non-suit. A judge may decide to direct a verdict of not guilty if there is not a scintilla of evidence to prove a guilty verdict.




Legal theory of Nullification by the States

Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power.


Are we making the same argument using different language? The question is meant to be serious and I am not trying to argue / start an argument or be a smartass or anything like that.




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
This could merit its own topic. We heard of the teen who was charged with attempted lynching because the cops claimed he yelled "kick her ass" to a friend who was being detained. He faced 7 years in jail for that. He was bailed out by a google engineer who saw the news story. Afaik there is 0 indication for the accusation to even be true. He was just filming the encounter. Now the really crap part. His house got raided. Every communication medium seized. Even privilidged attorney-client papers. Also everything his family has. This just makes my blood boil


Uhm yeah.. Thats BS. Here is another source with the attached video that was taken of the incident. It goes on to point out that the Officer has told the story a few times, and it keeps changing.

Source

Again:
- PA here needs to be checked for prosecutorial misconduct as well as signing off on a search warrant when the officer herself can not provide accurate details of what occured.
- The Officer needs to be investigated for potentially submitting a false Police Report (if we submit a report and it contains lies, we fall under the same statute - most states anyways).
- The officers who raided the house and the manner in which it occured should be looked at as well.

I do have one issue with this though. I am still unable to find any main stream media reports about this. I keep coming across blogs and what not. If someone finds more info from MSM please post it / pvt msg me. I am curious since this entire incident makes no sense.

To birng it back around on topic, I just fail to understand why Officers have an issue with people recording their actions in a safe manner. As long as they arent interfering, placing themselves or others in danger, or obstructing the officer I see absolutely no reason to even make contact with them, with the exception of a fight or use of force.

By that I mean the video should be collected as evidence, either in favor of, or against whichever party committed wrong doing. I am not suggesting it be forcefully seized or anything like that, but the video does present a different angle that can be used.

We need to check the FEderal Appelas dockets to see if any wiretap by cellphone in public cases are looming anywhere on the horizon.

As I have said many times before, video does not always show the entire truth. In this case with the Los Angeles incident is proof of that.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
LA weekly has been covering this. Is that mainstream media? As I recall this was the source the google engineer who bailed the teen out read it from.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by dubiousone

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
* * * if I as Foreman can nullify the case citing the defendant's right to have the case recorded to prevent a case of corruption and neglect. * * *


Any juror has the power to "nullify" simply by voting "not guilty". A juror is not required to justify their decision to anyone.
edit on 1/29/2011 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)


Jury nullification comes from the Judge, not the jury. A judge can nullify, or set aside, a juries verdict is he/she beleives the conclusion of the jury is not in line with the evidence or law. This is rare for the obvious reasons and usually gives ground for an appeal.

As a juror, once the verdict is read there is an option to poll the jury. The judge will go person to person and ask how they voted for a matter of record.


The post following yours states it correctly.

Also, a judge cannot under any circumstances "nullify" or set aside a jury's verdict on "not guilty" in a criminal case. The jury has the last word on that issue. However, a judge can provide relief from a guilty verdict under some circumstances. The defendant can appeal from a guilty verdict. The state cannot appeal from a verdict of "not guilty" in the US.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Check my post at the top of this page. Thats why I asked if we were saying the same thing using a different term.

I am aware of the judge not being able to overturn a not guilty verdict, since it would violate the 6th amendment as well as the 5th for double jeopardy grounds.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by dubiousone
 


Check my post at the top of this page. Thats why I asked if we were saying the same thing using a different term.

I am aware of the judge not being able to overturn a not guilty verdict, since it would violate the 6th amendment as well as the 5th for double jeopardy grounds.


I see what you're saying. You are right about what the judge can do. But the term "jury nullification" refers to the power of jurors acting alone or in concert to decide the case contrary to what the court tells them the law requires them to do.

Jurors are the final judges of the facts and the law, at least when their decision is to acquit rather than to convict. And so it should be.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 
Well, I was talking mainly about judges in general. There are legal mechanisms in place to dismiss frivolous law suits before they even get past the 1st admin staffer, eh? Here in the UK & I'm sure in some States of America, you can be fined for bringing such suits. You can also be counter-sued for distress & costs. The deterrent is already in place.
I dont believe its enough that review by an internal committee or complaints board can reprimand the judiciary, or cops for that matter, b/c this relies on a person having the testicular fortitude to take on the system & that the system is unbiased, which it isn't. The remedy is like any other job: the are rules. You disregard them & put somebody else through problems, its you thats liable, not your company. A few asses getting personally sued off would go a long way toward making judges stick to the rules.

In this case, I dont think the law was applied properly either. We know that the judge had been warned in advance that Allison intended to record, or why ask the question of him? Its hardly standard courtroom procedure. Thus, if the judge objected, that ought to have been conveyed to Allison before stepping into court. The reason is b/c, as you know, the defendant doesn't get to ask anybody involved anything whenever they enter a court, they get to keep their mouth shut until asked questions in the dock, on penalty of being found in contempt.
Only the judge could ask anyone else present for their consent, or make time before proceedings began to allow Allison to ask himself. I forget what its called but there's a legal principle that means something like, you cant be put in a position where an otherwise legal action becomes an offence b/c of circumstances beyond your control, sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you dont" situation. That clearly applies here & that judge needs to lose their house.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


We as a civilian pupolace have no recourse to injustices brought upon us by the powers that be.

How can we even defend ourselves any more.

How are you supposed to prve anything anymore.

How can video taping someone in public be illegal.

Now how about this scenerio.

Comming home from work last nigh at around 9pm and as I pass over the bridge on RT93 heading north there is a hug piece of equipment on the bridge scooping up salty snow and instead of removing it in truck and disposing of it what do you think they were doing with it.

They were dumping itin the merrimac river.

You assholes and the state cop who sat there and watched him you both should be arrested for illegal dumping and the cop was an accomplis as he was right there doing nothing but surfing the internet.

This is a river which has seen the wrost immaginable due to all the toxic chemicals which were dump in it in the 60 70 and 80's.

This river is recovery and has been protexted ever since.

Now how can these assholes due something like this.



This is public drinking water.

The water is treated about 10 miles down the river in andover ma.

How can they do stuff like this.

Now when all this crap is dumped into the river do you not think this is going to kill fish.

On of the most protected species is in that river . I know because I have seen them the stergeon.

How about the stripped bass and the atlantic salmon.

I have had the honor and priviledge of fishing this greater fishery and have caught salmonnsmallies(small mouth bass) large mouth bass carp catfish huge stripped bass as big as 40inches.


Now how cane the do something like that.

They will be out there tonight as well as they ar not done yet.

I am going to go out and vidoe tape it and post it.

Is there a way to do it without getting in to trouble. I can go under at the rivers edge and show where they dump it. It drops down onto the ice and sometimes breaks through.

I will post some pictures and maybe a video if your all lucky.

This is the bad people really bad.

Dont take a scoop and back up about 50 feet and dump it into the woods no that would take to long just dump it into the river out of site right.


I hope you the guy who was doing this choke as you will be drinking the water you ass.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This is bananas...but, I'm sure it's for our own safety. God forbid we have the ability to protect ourselves by turning the all seeing eye/ears of technology back onto the ones there to "protect" us.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Holy hell. Now they're actually trying to get an official ban on video cameras in florida court rooms

PINAC



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Does anyone know what the outcome of this mans trial was???
I tried searching but could not find it.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
I don't think it has gone to trial yet. I think I would've heard of it.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


In an article I found online the trial date was set for Feb. 17 2011, but that is all I can find.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Raping kids in Illinois : 1-30 years in jail.
First degree murder in Illinois : 20 years in jail.
Second degree murder in Illinois : 4-20 years in jail.


Videotaping cops : 75 years.

Yeah this is totally NOT PROOF that cops are TOTAL GODS!! We must lick their boots! They are obviously above the law, they are SUPREME!!

Just based on the facts, whoever is in Illinois should rape or kill the cop instead of videotaping. Sell your camera and buy a gun.
edit on 2-6-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Relax; the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch out after you wear them awhile



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I was going to post this by itself, but in honest, I think it fits well here.

Shane Boor, busted for flipping the bird at state trooper, to be defended by ACLU


​During a recent drive to work, Shane Boor indulged in one of America's favorite pastimes: He flipped someone the bird. Trouble is, the person he aimed it at was a Colorado State Patrol officer so unamused that he had a fellow trooper track Boor down and give him a criminal summons. Enter the ACLU, which is defending Boor -- and the idea that giving the finger is constitutionally protected.

"Our right to free expression allows us not only gestures that are permissible in polite society," says ACLU of Colorado campaign director Erik Maulbetsch, "but rude ones as well."



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I live not too far from a police station. I have been thinking of recording them not using their turn signals. They have no problem giving out tickets for that exact same thing to the rest of us. This is just another way for cops to break the law and not get in trouble. I am not saying all police are bad just a few.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Here's a guy who made a documentary film about filming police. Quite telling based on the trailer. I'm hoping we can see the full one soon.

Youtube



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
People have no clue what kind of court they are in and why this judge can do any thing he damn well pleases in his court. Here is a hint folks; the constitutional Republics do not exist anymore. In other words we aint in Kansas anymore Dorothy. I am not going to explain it any further because I have done so for many years and most people just don't want to wake up and smell the coffee they are so indoctrinated with crap from the MSM and what they fear thier friends and nieghbors might think of them if they think a contrary thought to government approved thinking it is not worth the trouble anymore...


edit on 3-6-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


What about the issue with unwilling celebrities, or anyone that is reported on that has not provided their consent? Or as a more extreme example, as has been mentioned, citizens that are wire-tapped and spied on?

Rules should apply to everyone or no one..




new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join