Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Judge Rules Police Dash Cam Videos Can Be Kept Secret

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by netwarrior
 


no it isn't illegal most judges throw those csaes out alot of people have been arressted for it only to appear in front of a judge and the charges are dismissed when the video recording is done in public. It even happened in Chicago and Maryland. i follow Carlos Miller's blog Photoghraphy is not a crime it is very interesting reading if you have time to check it out.




posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
This is further evidence of the deterioration of not only our constitutional rights but also of the seperation of powers that was instituted to act as a system of checks and balances to insure the interest of the public is being served.

Law enforcement falls under the executive branch and judges serve the judicial branch and are there to insure that no one, citizen or government crosses the line and acts in a way that is unconstitutional. However over the last several decades we have seen the judiciary thwarting its responsibility to the people and constitution and becoming increasingly aligned with the many tyrants in law enforcement.

IMHO the judge that declared this ruling should be removed from office and beaten on the town square with a rubber hose. I don't say this because I am a radical or anti-government, I say this because this judge took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution when he was voted/appointed judge just as I took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic when I entered the Navy, and I take my oath to heart and still live up to that oath with virtue and honor everyday of my life. This POS excuse for an "Honorable" man is a traitor to the citizens of this nation and is a tyrant. Sure he also took an oath to uphold the laws of his state but since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land his oath to uphold it trumps his responsibility to any tyrannical, corrupt law.

Jefferson said that "When the people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fear the people there is liberty."

This is why we are seeing an increase in just these types of tyrannical rulings and laws. The government is doing all it can to remove any chance of having to answer to the people. They are in effect removing the people from the equation and thereby creating a state in which they will never have to fear the people because the people are out of the loop.

I have said it on here and many other sites, it is time that the people of America follow in the footsteps of Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay, Henry, Adams, and all the other founding fathers. It is time the we revolt, not because we want to but because the out of control tyrants that we elect to serve us are forcing us to. Now I'm not saying we should start picking off cops and politicians, I am saying that first it must be attempted in a peaceful manner just as our founders attempted.

Washington DC is our district, the Halls of Congress, The White House, The Supreme Court, they are all ours. We only allow the people there to be there and it is quickly becoming time that we serve them with an eviction notice. Read our Declaration of Independence, look at the 25 acts that the founders listed as acts of tyranny by the King of England and notice just how closely what our government is doing now parallel those acts and ask yourselves what would Jefferson do? (WWJD)?...Ha!

We need an occupy DC movement to the tune of millions paled out on the Mall in DC and let the no good SOB's know that we are not taking it anymore. What would they do, how would they arrest 4 million people? Of course you can say they would use the FEMA camps but if that's really their mentality then that will happen anyway, better for us to have the upperhand when it does.

Either way we are destined and headed for a revolution and the more that Big Brother tightens their grip the more it will make people like me and many others, the patriots of this nation, push for rebellion.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Yeah and i said nothing about the public right to know i am referring to the individual who was actually ticketed and or arrested because THEY CAN obtain the dash cam footage through Motion Of Disclosure of their interaction with A LEO and post the video publicly on say Youtube. And as far as i know there is no law that says one cannot do this.



posted on Apr, 14 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 

I agree with your position Nucleardiver and thanks for a thoughtful reply. I am wondering if this judge just thought the vid would cause too much trouble from the public or something, because I can't see any other justification from him on this. I fell that this case will be paramount in future cases in various states. The judgement has drawn much criticism nation wide but particularly in Seattle. There is an aggressive appeal already taking place and the public is livid about it up there.

The occupy notion, well I think this year will bring tens of thousands to the streets. We know numerous students will show up, but maybe it will catch on and make some difference. The economy globally is so close to collapsing, and the UK and Greece situations id becoming more dire. heck the Greeks are already reverting to a barter system, to some degree, which I like the idea of. Maybe not as a replacement for money, but a supplement, now and in the future.

2012 is going to be one for the record books, on numerous levels, imo, but perhaps it is birthing pains for a new paradigm. Let's just hope some altruism remains in the changes.

spec



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Where did you get its illegal to film police from?


I thought you were up on all laws of this country?


In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland), it is now 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------

The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler’s license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison.



www.thefreemanonline.org...#

Read that again. A man in Chicago is being charged for Class I felony recording for recording his encounter with the law.

Maybe you should look up the laws before questioning others? But, I guess cops have the mentality that they know it all so why learn more?







edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by netwarrior
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


It is illegal to film cops in some states. Maryland is the only one that comes to mind at the moment. I just woke up like 5 minutes ago and i'm a bit foggy.


The last I checked the Maryland law was corrected by the courts. Illinois should be the only state left who consider filming the police a crime.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The last I checked the Maryland law was corrected by the courts. Illinois should be the only state left who consider filming the police a crime.


If you knew it was a crime in Illinois, then why did you even question my post?

Illegal in one state is illegal after all. Since I didn't say which state I was talking about, your questioning of my post is rather ignorant if you ask me. Since I have proven it IS illegal to film cops at least only in Illinois (for now).

Would you consider medical marijuana illegal? Even though 16 states have it on the books as being lagal? I would until ALL states say it is not.

BTW, how is the man in Chicago being charged with a FEDERAL OFFENSE if it is not a FEDERAL OFFENSE?


In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is a crime that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation.


So, if filming cops is only illegal in Illinois, how does one get charged federally?

edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by HandyDandy
 


I see your still unable to hold a conversation without attacking others.

I do know the law which is why I asked and had you done research you would have found threads on this site that deal with the issue and resolution of the recording in public. Illinois is the last state and when those cases hit the federal appeals level there law will be changed and rightfully so. Illinois was discussed in depth in those threads as well.

Since we have such a large number of anti law enforcement people on this site, and because they dont bother to read up / follow up on cases, people are still claiming states will throw you in prison for recording the police, wish is not true.

By all means though continue making blanket comments in an effort to stereotype. If you knew Illinois is the only state left then why didn't you bother to put that in your post instead of the general comment you made, which was done in an attempt to stereotype and lump all law enforcement / court rulings into the same bag?

The better question is what does Illinois have to do with the topic?


Maybe you should look up the laws before questioning others? But, I guess cops have the mentality that they know it all so why learn more?


Yup.. no stereotyping what so ever from your post. If you researched you would find the many threads on this site that discussed the recording issues and the resolution. I guess since you hate police the mentality is to just blame and stereotype and attack?

Now shall we continue with the discussion or would you rather derail the thread even more by your continued anti law enforcement mentality where you advocated the killing of people who support the ruling?

To bring it back on topic - We are discussing Seattle. Your opinion on the dash cam is?
edit on 15-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Tell me:

How is a man being charged with a FEDERAL CRIME if it is not a FEDERAL LAW?

And, BTW, as far as my call for killing.....get used to it. People are getting entirely fed up with people in your profession.



edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
To bring it back on topic - We are discussing Seattle. Your opinion on the dash cam is?


My opinion on the dash cam is that it is a collusion of the judiciary with the legislature to limit the accountability of the legislative branch to the public at large.

And it pisses me off that it is allowed.

Better?

edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
To bring it back on topic - We are discussing Seattle. Your opinion on the dash cam is?


My opinion on the dash cam is that it is a collusion of the judiciary with the legislature to limit the accountability of the legislative branch to the public at large.

Better?


Not really but at least its on topic, although lacking in knowledge. Has it ever crossed your mind that aside from law enforcement and investigative issues that its also a privacy issue for non law enforcement on the dash cam?

Public interest does not override a persons constitutional rights. If you weren't so hell bent on cop hating and advocating murder you might know that.

As for my comment about federal appeals. You need to brush up on the judicial process when a legal action at the state level hits the State Supreme Court. After that it goes to Federal appeals. Im amazed you dont know that.

As far as collusion please explain that one. Please show how the judges ruling is incorrect and why and what rights its affects if any? Or did you arrive at that conclusion because of your hatred of law enforcement?
edit on 15-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Not really but at least its on topic, although lacking in knowledge. Has it ever crossed your mind that aside from law enforcement and investigative issues that its also a privacy issue for non law enforcement on the dash cam?


So, if I can prove my innocence from a dash cam but the cam shows some non-law enforcement...their right to privacy overides my right to protect myself and prove my innocence?


Public interest does not override a persons constitutional rights. If you weren't so hell bent on cop hating and advocating murder you might know that.


You are the only one going on about public interest. I am going on about private interest in proving innocence. Maybe if you weren't so hell bent on public hating and advocating cop's rights over the citizenry YOU might know that.


As for my comment about federal appeals. You need to brush up on the judicial process when a legal action at the state level hits the State Supreme Court. After that it goes to Federal appeals. Im amazed you dont know that.


Federal appeals have nothing to do with the charge. The man in Chicago was charged federally. How can one be charged federally if there are not laws on the federal books?


As far as collusion please explain that one.


Look up the definition of collusion..........


Please show how the judges ruling is incorrect and why and what rights its affects if any?


Are you saying this ruling has NO effect on someone's right to defend themself?

edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Every citizen needs discreet cameras on and in their vehicles, and data should be streamed away from the vehicle to a storage location.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy
So, if I can prove my innocence from a dash cam but the cam shows some non-law enforcement...their right to privacy overides my right to protect myself and prove my innocence?

Nope -My post did not say that so next time please read it instead of trying to misinterpret or put words into my mouth I never said.

Any persons demanding to see the dashcam footage that contains you can be denied to protect your privacy issues / footage as evidence.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
You are the only one going on about public interest. I am going on about private interest in proving innocence. Maybe if you weren't so hell bent on public hating and advocating cop's rights over the citizenry YOU might know that.

Again had you read and actually understood my post you find see we are saying the same thing. A persons rights come before the public interest in the tape. A persons rights comes before public interest.

Public hating? Your the one who advocated the murder of police not me. I not entirely sure what your malfunction is but you need to figure it out and stop dragging it into threads to derail the topic.



Originally posted by HandyDandy
Federal appeals have nothing to do with the charge. The man in Chicago was charged federally. How can one be charged federally if there are not laws on the federal books?

Is this the case?
Man gets 75 years

If either one is what you are talking about then you need to read them again. None of the people involved are charged with any federal violations.
All of the articles I have found deal with the state law, Chicago Police, and their actions. The link above is a state action with the exception of the victims law suit. The City / Police are being sued in federal court because of civil rights violations (which is a federal issue). I have found nothing that shows the feds charging anyone for recording the police.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
Look up the definition of collusion..........

I know what collusion is. I asked you how you came to that conclusion on the OP topic. Please explain.
While your at it look up the definition of evidence.


Originally posted by HandyDandy
Are you saying this ruling has NO effect on someone's right to defend themself?

If you aren't going to bother reading the post then why are you bothering to respond?
KOMO news sues City - takes case to State Supreme Court = read plese

You dont need to bother responding if you dont want to. I wont be responding to any more of your posts since you can even extend the courtesy of reading the available info on the topic, let alone getting a persons post correct. You have made your intent to troll clear, you have made your lets murder the police position clear.

You have no desire to do anything but derail the thread with your personal issues and I am not going to help you do that.

Have fun Ahab.
edit on 15-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I agree with all Xcathdra has posted here today with clear and well thought out post responses, having several officers on my threads because I do my best to keep and honest and open discussion going and use nothing but the law and not the BS hyper reactions. I also have several family members in law enforcement and served for two years myself. Like to invite Xcthdra to look over the threads listed below and look forward to your responses.

To many people today THINK they know the Constitution, yet few have the lawful understanding of the contract. Contract yes, the Constitution is a contract and every word has a very specific meaning in law, not our common speak/language and this is what THEY(TPTB) are keeping you from. Before one can debate whether something is Constitutional or not they need to understand the contract and law.

When your ready to learn what has been kept from you all these years you can start at these threads.
Every thing I claim is footnoted and backup clearly in every law book in the Union but know one reads the dang things. For example: We the People is not you and I, the 14th Amendment made slaves of us all voluntarily, voting is a crime read Treason by Design and the list goes on. But people would rather live in fantasy land then learn the truth in law. True and total freedom awaits you when your ready to learn.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Treason by Design

www.abovetopsecret.com...
PAC Patriot Miss Belief

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Open letter to LEO

To all LEOs and Citizens alike please read over the above thread.

For the past two years have had my head in law books and after these studies have put together a collection of pdfs to help us all understand the law and jurisdiction. How and why it applies to you.

To my LEO friends the link Patriot Miss beliefs is a must read to help you on traffic stops when coming across some of these type groups that have no understanding or lawful ground to stand on with their claims. Such as Straw man, Freeman, UCC and Sovereigns. The information I put together here for all, you will NOT hear in your yearly law hour courses, at least not to the extent explained within.

To all citizens involved with these so called Patriot groups this is a MUST read, true freedom from (LEO) jurisdiction, private statue laws and much more is possible. There is but one lawfully recognized means to accomplish this. Recognized from the President to the LEO on the street, so if you truly want total and complete freedom start your studies today at the threads posted above.

I am here to answer any questions and to help educate all on these very important topics.
Thank you for your time.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have found nothing that shows the feds charging anyone for recording the police.


As far as I am aware Christopher Drew of Chicago was charged with a Class I Felony for recording the police.

But: You are correct that it was overturned..........


In Cook County today Judge Stanley J. Sacks declared Illinois’ eavesdropping law—which is one of the toughest in the nation—unconstitutional in his ruling in the case of Christopher Drew, who was charged with the felony crime in 2009.


newschicago.net...

The fact that they tried charging him federally still stands though.

How can they charge him with a federal offense if it is not federally illegal?

Or am I confusing felony with federal? True question.....

edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


From your own link......


"If the police can use these videos to hold citizens accountable, then citizens should be able to use the same videos to hold police accountable," said Toby Nixon with the Washington Coalition for Open Government.

"The whole point of having dashcam videos is for accountability to the public, and to make sure there aren't violations of civil rights," said Rep. Gerry Pollet, D-North Seattle.


And I agree with every word.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Apparently, dash cams are there to help police, not the public. If it's their property why would they have any obligation to disclose videos that aren't a part of a legal proceeding?

I guess we should just start looking out for ourselves and using our own recording equipment.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkcaw
I guess we should just start looking out for ourselves and using our own recording equipment.


I am looking at one on ebay right now for 58$ with free shipping. Can hold a 32G stick. I think I'm getting it just to cover my bases now that cops don't have to disclose their dash cam recordings.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Your the one who advocated the murder of police not me.


Actually...I didn't either. If you reread my post, at no time did I mention police. For all you knew I was advocating for the judges. But, in your paranoid "everyone hates cops" mind, I ment the police.


BTW....I am not even advocating the indiscriminant killing of ANYONE. Only the domestic threats that the 2nd amendment gives me the right to advocate against.

I wonder what line you would have been on in the US revolution. You do know that pretty much everything they (our founding fathers) did was illegal correct? Would you have just done your job and arrested them too? Give us the excuse that you don't make the laws so don't go hating those who enforce unjust laws?

edit on 15-4-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution