Are Cameras the New Guns?
The move to stop recording of police misconduct.
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 legal justification for arresting the “shooter” rests on existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws, with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where “no expectation of privacy exists” (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
Massachusetts attorney June Jensen represented Simon Glik who was arrested for such a recording. She explained, “[T]he statute has been misconstrued by Boston police. You could go to the Boston Common and snap pictures and record if you want.” Legal scholar and professor Jonathan Turley agrees, “The police are basing this claim on a ridiculous reading of the two-party consent surveillance law — requiring all parties to consent to being taped. I have written in the area of surveillance law and can say that this is utter nonsense.”
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.
In 2001, when Michael Hyde was arrested for criminally violating the state’s electronic surveillance law — aka recording a police encounter — the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld his conviction 4-2. In dissent, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall stated, “Citizens have a particularly important role to play when the official conduct at issue is that of the police. Their role cannot be performed if citizens must fear criminal reprisals….” (Note: In some states it is the audio alone that makes the recording illegal.)
The selection of “shooters” targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate.
Glik captured a police action on his cellphone to document what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized.
On his website Drew wrote, “Myself and three other artists who documented my actions tried for two months to get the police to arrest me for selling art downtown so we could test the Chicago peddlers license law. The police hesitated for two months because they knew it would mean a federal court case. With this felony charge they are trying to avoid this test and ruin me financially and stain my credibility.”
Hyde used his recording to file a harassment complaint against the police. After doing so, he was criminally charged.
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.
A recent arrest in Maryland is both typical and disturbing.
On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III’s motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.
The case is disturbing because:
1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents’ house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.
2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, “It’s more [about] ‘contempt of cop’ than the violation of the wiretapping law.”
3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is “some capricious retribution” and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber’s traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.
Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. “Arrest those who record the police” appears to be official policy, and it’s backed by the courts.
Carlos Miller at the Photography Is Not A Crime website offers an explanation: “For the second time in less than a month, a police officer was convicted from evidence obtained from a videotape. The first officer to be convicted was New York City Police Officer Patrick Pogan, who would never have stood trial had it not been for a video posted on Youtube showing him body slamming a bicyclist before charging him with assault on an officer. The second officer to be convicted was Ottawa Hills (Ohio) Police Officer Thomas White, who shot a motorcyclist in the back after a traffic stop, permanently paralyzing the 24-year-old man.”
When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.
Happily, even as the practice of arresting “shooters” expands, there are signs of effective backlash. At least one Pennsylvania jurisdiction has reaffirmed the right to video in public places. As part of a settlement with ACLU attorneys who represented an arrested “shooter,” the police in Spring City and East Vincent Township adopted a written policy allowing the recording of on-duty policemen.
As journalist Radley Balko declares, “State legislatures should consider passing laws explicitly making it legal to record on-duty law enforcement officials.”
Comment by ThePoet on 1 June 2010:
Let me see if i follow this:
1. Bad cops broke the law, and hurt people.
2. We know this BECAUSE we have video that depicts it.
3. No more filming police on the street.
ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE?
We have decided to give immunity to bad cops that break the law and hurt people. Please stand quietly for your beating, don’t make the officer drag you into a dark alley.
Since we have so many cameras up that capture open public space -better pass another law denying a person the ability to subpoena any films from those.
The people aren’t even fighting back, by fighting; they just want there to be a witness, basically. What’s next, ordering bystanders to close their eyes?
I leave you with this quote:
“When policemen break the law, then there is no more law; just a fight for survival.”
ThePoet
Comment by James Madison Fan on 1 June 2010:
Upheld by the same court that upheld the right to gay marriage? Well that’s sometihng I didn’t see coming.
Comment by Todd S. on 1 June 2010:
The state has a monopoly on force. The police are an instrument of the state. Did we expect any different?
Pingback by Are Cameras the New Guns? | myninjaplease on 2 June 2010:
[...] .:thefreemanonline.org-> Share this: [...]
Comment by Peter on 2 June 2010:
Way to go Adolf. Your way of controlling the people lives on. Congratulations.
Comment by notAmused on 2 June 2010:
“Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal … Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested.”
If all parties must consent, does that mean that the police can’t use video from their dashboard cams if the perpetrator does not consent??
Comment by John in MA on 2 June 2010:
I guess this is the legacy of the Bush/Cheney policy of trashing the constitution when it comes to the rights of common people. It will just be a matter of time before we see waterboarding down at the local police stations to get information out of “really bad people” or to track down video recordings on phones.
Pingback by Illegal to record an on-duty officer? » News, Hacker, View, Comments » Adjoozey on 2 June 2010:
[...] Comments View full post on Hacker News [...]
Comment by vlad on 2 June 2010:
An employer can legally record employees at workplace. That was
upheld at courts. Thus it follows that
public(employer) can legally record police(employees) on public property(workplace).
Comment by George on 2 June 2010:
Look – this won’t hold up in any real court that isn’t in some backwater hick county. If a cop records a drunk driver via in dash cam & brings that video to court as proof can the defendant charge the officer with a felony for recording without authorization? What about the cameras in the court house? If this article isn’t completely made up and half the stuff is true then there are some pretty stupid defense lawyers practicing in said states. There are of course equally stupid prosecutors.
Comment by frankie on 2 June 2010:
Can someone say police state?….
Comment by Phred on 2 June 2010:
Commentator George is wrong, the case is very much real. I looked it up on Maryland Case Search.
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=12K10000647&loc=56&detailLoc=K
The fact that this happens in my home state of Maryland disgusts me.
Comment by chris on 2 June 2010:
As per police taking photos or film of people in the act of arresting, or investigating a potential crime, I would think that they are immune from prosecution for failing to get the perps consent as they could likely assert some type of immunity.
I fail to see how any person of sound legal mind (especially one raised to the eminence of the bench) could see these holdings as proper unless hoping to be overturned by a higher court in order to gain a powerful verdict on the subject. The absolute only circumstance where I could see this as being proper is if the person, in the act of video taping, directly interferes with the arrest or otherwise attempts to influence or obstruct the officer from their duty. Outside of this circumstance, I can posit no socially beneficial result. If police are doing a good job, video will show our valiant protectors. If the police are committing illegal or atrocious acts upon the citizenry, then are these not the people that should be exposed and held accountable? Is it merely a matter of hoping to bend public perception and avoid the result that people will not trust the police and therefore not respond to police performing their duties adequately? Surely if that is the goal, a system can be put in place to remedy it… (crimestoppers—> POabuse stoppers) This is an issue to be quite concerned about especially in light of the recent SCOTUS decision on Miranda.
Comment by Tyranny is here on 2 June 2010:
Statute: A legislative rule of a society given the force of Law by consent of the governed. Don’t Consent!
“Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory.” ~Maxim of law
“If tyranny ever comes to your door- it will come in uniform.” J. McLamb
Comment by Nick on 2 June 2010:
I’m wondering. There may be a loophole in some of these laws. If you announce aloud that you are recording, (and are holding a sign that states so if necessary, incase of the deaf for whatever reason), could they prosecute you for taping police abuse?
How about this one: Have a friend stand on the side of a camera shot and do something. Comment occasionally that what your friend is doing is cool. This way, you can show the video as evidence, because you didn’t intentionally record the police abuse, and they just happened to be in the background of your video.
Comment by Sam on 3 June 2010:
Seems like this is an unpopular law – does anyone actually want that law to be law apart from the police? No? In that case, the law / precedent must be reverted.
Comment by rolando on 3 June 2010:
I’ve always supported law enforcement and my comments are not directed at them, it’s directed at the system. So with that said, if a peace officer is doing their duty properly, there is nothing to worry about if they are being recorded. I might add, at least in the state of Texas, we have police video cameras that record what officers do–built right into the car of the officer–and this is not only for their safety, but for their own protection and if necessary, evidence for use later in court. So is this a double standard, as I’ve never seen an officer say, “you’re being recorded, is that ok?”
Whatever happened to the first amendment? Where are our freedoms going now with all these laws? Again, I support law enforcement and certainly do not condone illegal behaviors by anyone, but the right to record the public in the public, especially when it involves public servants, should not be removed from anyone. I wonder if the National Press Photographers Association and other media organizations have sought tackling these laws, as if it starts with the local public, it will trickle to news media next an then we’ll be an ill-informed public if the right to record “spot news” disappears.
Comment by lg on 3 June 2010:
It is utter nonsense for people to blame George Bush for this. This is clearly a case of the courts run amok. Bush was trying to stop terrorists. Now under the socialist/facist Obama regime who is using this tool against terrorism to make criminals out of ordinary citizens. When you make criminals out of good people, when you flip right and wrong, people are much easier to control.
Comment by Apathy Is Collaboration on 3 June 2010:
Really, stories like this *need* to be disseminated – though 9/10 of the time the response will be something like “blah blah, I don’t care, quit your bitching you stupid hippies.” Laws like this exist not because masses of people WANT them to, but because they’ve become so inured to anything outside the comfort zone of their own lives that they’re unable to care enough about something that doesn’t affect them directly. Banality of evil – it was people not giving a damn that helped the Nazis to power.
Do your civic duty. Wake someone up today.
Comment by Casper on 4 June 2010:
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
Comment by Fuck the Police on 4 June 2010:
Wait a sec. The police say its suddenly illegal to videotape another without consent? I guess this means we can charge them all with their years of videotaping us through their car cameras, as well as all the video cameras mounted all over our cities and roadways… Can a double standard be any more obvious than in this case or what? I suppose the beating of Rodney King should have resulted in arresting the guy who taped the whole thing as he must have been the only criminal in that situation….. This is just another reason in the long pile of reasons why people dont respect the police- Get a clue people…
Pingback by Cameras: The New Guns? - My Les Paul Forums on 5 June 2010:
[...] The New Guns? The Freeman: Are Cameras the New Guns? – D __________________ Bands, Present & Past: Nurse Diesel | Diesel On MySpace | Big Sky | [...]
Comment by Chris Drew on 5 June 2010:
Robert Lederman in New York City tells artists selling on the street to… “collect EVIDENCE if you want to win your case.
That goes for beating a ticket or winning a lawsuit.
Your verbal recollection, notes or witnesses are not going
to help you prevail against the testimony of the police.
EVERY SINGLE conversation with a PEP officer, NYPD
officer, Parks Dept official or BID employee should be taped
from the first to last word of the event. Get their names
and who they work for on tape as well. Such tapes are legal
WITHOUT getting permission to make them,
and absolutely can be used in court.”
Following this advice in Illinois will land you in a 1st class felony fight because we have no right to gather the evidence we need to dispute anything a policeman says in court in Illinois. Add to this, in Chicago we have Mayor Daley, who will not fire violent officers – even those with 50 or more human rights abuse charges against them, or even tell the City Council who those officers are. What is the state of the police in the state we live in?
I know it hurts. I know its hard to admit after repeating the pledge of allegiance since our first day in school and how many times have we sung the national anthem? But consider this reality, I am facing up to 15 years in prison from selling art for $1 on State Street. I was arrested on the misdemeanor for selling art but charged 6 hours later with a 1st class felony for eavesdropping on my own arrest and violating the privacy rights of the officer who arrested me. I had a digital audio recorder running collecting background noise from our Street Artist Adventure.
My lawyer tells me there is a correspondence between those states that have overly broad eavesdropping laws and states where the mob has influence. Corruption! If you are a corrupt public official or a person involved in corruption its in your favor to have an eavesdropping law that prevents anyone from recording anything in public without the fear of a felony. If you have a corrupt police force – how much more useful is this law. Consider this – only the State’s Attorney can decide if the officers privacy rights are worth protecting. The officer in Chicago does not make that decision.
Pingback by The Dash » Blog Archive » Are Cameras the New Guns? The move to stop recording of police misconduct - "We are the DASH in HIP-HOP" Current news from www.hip-hop.com on 6 June 2010:
[...] what he considered to be excessive force. He was not only arrested, his phone was also seized. read more from Wendy [...]
Comment by Mr. S. Randall Thomas on 6 June 2010:
I find this very, very offensive. I’m a photographer and I was arrested by Homeland Security for making a video (http://carlosmiller.com/2009/08/20/homeland-security-arrests-man-for-filming-fbi-building-in-nyc/.
As a result of my encounters I began selling hidden video cameras for the average guy to record police contacts (http://www.thekeychaincamera.com).
Something has got to give.
Comment by John Anello on 6 June 2010:
I have to say I find this article a bit misleading. Massachusetts law makes it illegal to willfully commit an interception or attempt to commit an interception of any wire or oral communication. Regardless of what one may think of this law, it is the law in Massachusetts and it applies to all Massachusetts residents. Why then, should it not apply to a citizen who secretly records the police while they are at work?
The law is designed to protect citizens’ reasonable expectation of privacy and punish those that violate it. Don’t the police have a reasonable expectation of privacy while they are performing their duties? I don’t think any of us would like other people secretly recording our conversations and that is probably why the Massachusetts legislature passed this law, why then should it not be extended to the police?
Pingback by Three US states make recording police activity illegal | dvafoto on 6 June 2010:
[...] Freeman has an interesting look into various states’ efforts to make illegal the recording of police activity. In Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland, wiretapping and eavesdropping laws have been used to [...]
Comment by James Madison Fan on 7 June 2010:
John,
I don’t think there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in a public place. I would offer it is intuitively contradictory to expect privacy when you’re in a public place. Just as you should expect tacos at a “taco” stand; you should expect to be on public display when you are in a “public” place. This violates “Reasonable Man” on a level that defies credulity. If this were in the locker room at the station then I’d be sympathetic to the privacy issue. If it were in an office I’d be less so. But on the street? Not a chance.
Even if I were to accept that a civilian has a limited expectation of privacy on a city street this does not extend to a public employee during work hours unless the employer indicates or infers that a particular piece of equipment is for personal as well as professional use. Even then the right to privacy is subordinate to the Freedom of Information Act. A civilian employee has no expectation of privacy at work and this is especially true for public employees.
So you have a public employee behaving badly in a public place. The word private doesn’t enter into the equation so I fail to see where the expectation of privacy resides?
Comment by John Anello on 8 June 2010:
JMF,
You make an excellent point regarding an expectation of privacy in a public place, and you may well be right. However, the right to privacy is an umbrella term that covers a number of different rights that don’t seem to be private at all. For example, a women’s right to have an abortion falls under the auspices of privacy rights, even though there is not much privacy in receiving an abortion. What exactly “a right to privacy” is can be intensely and infinitely debated
In Massachusetts, the legislature determined that people have a limited right to privacy in public places, this includes the right to not be secretly filmed or recorded while you are in a public place. In many respects the law makes sense, I would not want some weirdo filming children while they played in the park. If the legislature determines that people have a right to not be filmed in public place, equal protection dictates that they extend that right to public employees, including the police
Comment by James Madison Fan on 8 June 2010:
John,
The abortion issue seems to be a nonsequitur to me? The issue at hand is the behavior of someone we pay to protect us attacking someone on a public street in violation of his oath not to mention his job description. The second is a procedure done on a civilian that takes place behind closed doors in a hospital or doctor’s office. I don’t see the connection?
I think equal protection works both ways and I think it also steps on the First Amendment as well. I don’t want some pervert taping my daughter playing on the swings to satisfy libidinous urges but there is no way to differentiate between a pervert on the prowl and someone taking film of his vacation. While the news is constantly filled with predatory behavior the majority of people taking film are not predators. We’re not talking about an “up skirt” video or hiding a camera in the bathroom or showers, we’re talking about walking down the street. We’re going to enact law to prevent videotaping innocent acts because it might be abused by a select few? I can’t name a single right that would be safe applying the same criteria. At the end of that road lies Madison’s tomb.
It seems the height of irony to me that I can be taking film of the harbor where the Boston Tea Party took place and get arrested because I turn around and get footage of a cop playing whack-a-mile on a street vendor. “I’m sorry sir but I’m in the middle of an illegal assault. If you don’t turn off your camera then after I’m done kicking the life out of this citizen you’re going to be next.” Sounds like something out of Orwell or Huxley.
What’s worse is criminal police are given a pass when I doubt a criminal sans badge would be. Am I to believe that if a citizen was walking through a park and saw someone getting mugged the attacker could file a criminal complaint against the bystander that filmed him? Doesn’t it seem bizarre that I can be convicted of a felony because I taped a misdemeanor?
Now it could be argued that in both of my examples the footage was incidental rather than intentional but the same could be said for a security camera covering an ATM that faces a public street. Even if the crime is not against the ATM the footage of someone being mugged after using the ATM is admissible regardless of if the criminal gives his consent or not. Moreover couldn’t the vendor argue that he was video taping his daily routine and the cop’s assault was caught incidentally?
What is really bothering me is that putting all of the above aside we’re not talking about a private citizen, we’re talking about an officer acting under color of authority. Officers are held to a higher standard for a reason. When those that enforce the law are lawless then there is no law. The moment an officer acts illegally under color of authority it undermines trust in the people society needs to trust the most. If we can’t trust the cops then who do we trust?
A police officer can attack with impunity if they are not filmed in the act. They simply indicate that they felt “threatened” and you were “resisting arrest.” Any attempt at self defense is “assaulting a police officer.” So not only do you find yourself beaten to a pulp, you also get to defend yourself in court. What are the odds of winning when the only two witnesses are you and the cop? At or near zero.
My final thought is about the nutter that pulled his gun because some kids hit him with snowballs. A gun for snowballs and this guy has a badge? Thank any God you pray to someone caught that on video.
Pingback by ReasonAndJest.com » The Police State of Israel on 9 June 2010:
[...] reminds me of how, here in the U.S., we are not allowed to videotape police officers making arrests (or allegedly harassing citizens or worse), but at the same time, our [...]
Pingback by Cameras; the new guns?… (fascism on the march) « Guido's temple of the absurd on 18 June 2010:
[...] Cameras; the new guns?… (fascism on the march) By guidoamm http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/ [...]
Comment by publius on 18 June 2010:
In Texas, police originally opposed the installation of dashcams on police cars. Then they realized that it provided them with significant protection against false charges of misconduct. Further, the tape could always be mislaid or erased it if it showed something damaging. “Oops, we recorded over that section by mistake”.
Interestingly, I was involved as an expert in a DUI case in Houston where there were significant issues with the arrest report– Arguably, they just put in boiler-plate, never expecting the case to go to trial. Everybody wanted the overtime involved in mass DUI arrests– some DUI squad members make over six-figures from it. So there were three police cars at the scene. Somehow, all of the dashcam tapes were blank or mislaid. Go figure.
Pingback by Who’s Rodney King? | HERE'S SOME INFORMATION on 20 June 2010:
[...] Rodney King? Posted on June 20, 2010 by someinformation Here’s a disturbing little article In at least three states (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland), it is [...]
Comment by Father Time on 2 July 2010:
What happened to the cops Publius? Was there ever an investigation into misconduct?
Pingback by The Graveyard, The Empire and The Ugly (Truth) | Personal Patterns on 3 July 2010:
[...] Doesn’t allow its citizens to film its police; [...]
Pingback by You legally can not record cops on video. on 5 July 2010:
[...] record cops on video. Well at least in 3 states right now, which I know some of you live in. Are Cameras the New Guns? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty Seriosuly.. i'm not even sure what to say about such bullshit. Why it should be illegal to film [...]
Comment by Ryoon816 on 8 July 2010:
The police do not need consent to record for the same reason that they do not need a search warrent when they witness a crime. If there is reason enough to stop you, that would be seen as enough reason to wave your right to not be taped/videoed.
Comment by Andrew on 12 July 2010:
LETS GET THESE LAWS PASSED!
Comment by MarkieA on 17 July 2010:
So, does this “new” law work both ways. Can police car mounted cameras be used to convict someone if they don’t concede to the filming?
Comment by Vote Green Party on 20 July 2010:
But it’s their job to testify about the arrest – they have ZERO expectation of privacy when interacting with us, We the People, who also happen to be their bosses and employers.
When a cop interacts with a person, it’s not to be nice or help them out, it’s to arrest them, make a quota, or just harass them (as is common in Chicago, particularly African-American communities). Part of that “job” is to testify in court ABOUT the arrest – which includes testifying about what they did, what they said, what happened, what the other person said, etc.
If they have nothing to hide why are cops so afraid of being video/audio taped?! Wouldn’t video/audio tape be the BEST way of showing the judge and jury what really happened?! This is particularly a punch-in-the-face to residents of Chicago that has more video cameras than London, under cop control – they pick and choose which videos to use and which to deep-six out of sight/evidence.
When the cops have no respect for the rule of law, for the residents in the community that pay their salaries and for whom they are working, it’s a step away from totalitarianism.
We the People need to reset the system, equalize and balance it out, what’s fair for one is fair for all. No reason why the elite, cops (and corporations) can/should live under a ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY standard, while they force a ZERO TOLERANCE standard down our throats, with more and more laws, ever more oppressive.
Pingback by The police war on videotaping « Phil Ebersole's Blog on 4 August 2010:
[...] on Are Cameras the New Guns? for commentary by Wendy McElroy in The [...]
Pingback by The police war on videotaping | GCDSJ.COM on 8 August 2010:
[...] on Are Cameras the New Guns? for commentary by Wendy McElroy in The [...]
Comment by sin on 17 August 2010:
this a complete load of shit, and the citizens of these states should SHOW their local law makers that it will not be tolerated by putting together petitions and not voting for these scum at election time..and letting them know they wont be voted for if the laws arent fixed…
Comment by Jo Dean on 17 August 2010:
Americans have been conditioned to “take it” laying down. Until people finally get fed up and say “enough” it will just continue!
lou
http://www.be-anonymous.se.tc
Comment by Funnybone on 17 August 2010:
Guys, take it a little easy on Illinois. Our police force has never fully recovered from the images of the Democratic Convention of yesterday-year and we really couldn’t take another hit like that. We haven’t even begin to deal with our beloved Blago and Burge – so for our reputation – let’s just say no to camera’s shining on the Illinois Police; especially our Chicago force…afterall, we do our best work “behind the scenes.”
Pingback by Is it Taxation, Censorship, or Both? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty on 25 August 2010:
[...] Maryland and elsewhere, people who record police officers making arrests are charged with felonies and threatened with decades in [...]
Comment by Mitch on 25 August 2010:
So many people speak from so much ignorance. First, the police are simply immune from the wiretapping laws. That is a given, so please stop these “both ways” arguments. Second, however, it is truly disturbing that public place videos are somehow deemed private because the police do not consent. I defend police officers for a living and I find that argument very lame and unsupportable. As for Chris Drew, I’ll bet you won’t go around intentionally trying to get arrested again! You tried for a couple months to get a cop to arrest you, and you succeeded. Good for you. Bottom line is that police need to learn that ALL thier conduct is public and should withstand public scrutiny. Keep your soundtrack and your behavior defensible. Maybe then fewer people will have thier civil rights violated. It is a hard job, sure, but you sought it out, you got it, and you have now sworn to uphold the constitution. Get on with it.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 25 August 2010:
Mitch,
I think you are misunderstanding the “both ways” argument.
They are not offering that police should not be able to wire tap. They are pointing out the hypocrisy in thinking it is perfectly acceptable to use video to put someone in jail but only as long as the person in question doesn’t have a badge at which point it should be a crime.
Comment by Sam Plunkett on 25 August 2010:
I just heard about this and I am appalled. It is obvious to anyone that there is no expectation of privacy in public, and police are supposed to be public servants, in other words, they work for us. That means that we should be able to reasonably monitor them in public. Lets see, they can film us, beat us up, be rude to us, pull guns on us, yet, if we film them, we are guilty of a felony. That is tyranny, plain and simple. It is not becoming unreasonable to talk of fighting this oppression, particularly if it continues down this path. The entire war on terrorism, and the war on drugs, has become a tyrannical war on the citizens. Total subjugation is coming, in my opinion. Is that ok with everyone
?
Comment by Sam Plunkett on 25 August 2010:
Oh, and its not really wiretapping. That is another legal fiction. I am an attorney in California. I know this is wrong, all of you know it, and it is time people protest the increasing loss of freedoms. The elite of this country, including the support of global standards which seem to include disarming the population and criminalizing self-defense, speaking out, disciplining your children, and other non-crimes, are attempting to turn us all into slaves of sorts. Yes, this sounds nutty until you start to surf the net and see how prevalent it is. Hurricane Katrina, where disarmed citizens were attacked and women gang-raped in the stadium, is an example of how well the government will protect you. Industrialization and modern science, did not change the fact that power generally is abused unless checked. Am I wrong?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 26 August 2010:
Sam,
I think your point about post Katrina is a better indictment of the people than the government. There are plenty of places where tragedy strikes where people unit in an effort to help each other rather than acting like a bunch of savages. It isn’t like anyone with half-an-IQ point needs the government to tell them gang rape is wrong.
Would it be insensitive to point out that if you can’t figure out that the 22-foot storm surge is going to overwhelm the 18-foot levies then you shouldn’t be surprised when you experience Darwin at his finest?
Comment by Wakethefup on 28 August 2010:
At plunkett, hurricane Katrina just proved the type of worthless animals that are in society. You know, the people that make up we the people are not all good people. Katrina just proved what would happen in a society without police or atleast enough police.
Seems funny that the people selling art knew they were in violation for 2 months refused to get in conformity with the law, a law we the people or our representatives felt was needed, then I suppose the people calmly did as they were asked when it wad decided that an arrest should be made.
I have had people film me before on traffic stops, I’ve told them my dash cam is public information and they don’t have to sneak pics with their iPhone.
Comment by Brian on 2 September 2010:
Wakethefup,
You may not want to really hear this, but there are also glaring examples of what can happen when police overstep their bounds, or are overzealous. It absolutely goes both ways. There is always a requirement for some kind of ‘police’ force to keep people from harming each other, but that does not mean that what is currently in place is not primitive or that it is ideal. The person who was trying to ‘test’ the law probably figured that what he was doing was not against the spirit of the law, and wanted to see if the police would be ridiculous enough to do something to him for doing something harmless when the law likely was implied in a different way.
This is often true in many areas, though many police would call me a ‘stupid liberal with stupid opinions without basis who has no clue’ or just ‘angry because youre too stupid not to break the law’ or something like that. Yet, they wouldn’t apply this same kind of scrutiny to their own opinions. Most people do not, which is why you get so much shortsightedness in society. For the record, many laws are meant to apply to certain situations, but apply to others. This is why the common statement that people should just ‘shut up and contact the legislature’, because its not the courts or police’s place to use discretion is utterly wrong, since the legislature does not have infinite time or resources.
Also, most police seem to be neo-conservative, and these types of people tend to absolutely not want to change their views…if you have a different view than them, they’re right and you just have some kind of problem or character flaw. Its maddeningly one-dimensional and harmful to society. When there is a conflict between two forces or individuals, it is irrational to just assume that its one person’s fault because ‘they broke the law and they deserve it’. Life is more complex than that. In addition, anyone who has power over others should be well aware of the responsibilities that power carries, be able to understand that their point of view may not always be right, and understand how easily it is to get caught up in a position of power and abuse it. If anything, this is even more important than knowing the ‘law’. Again, police are supposed to be public servants in a position of high responsibility. Sticking to your guns and being closed minded does not make you a person of character. If anything, being able to admit when one is wrong, putting yourself in others shoes, examining things multi dimensionally, and considering ones own biases makes one a person of character…one more likely to do the right thing and at least more likely to have a ‘correct’ worldview. Yet it seems like police in general, being trained in this rigid environment are the opposite of this, along with most of the justice system.
Most judges are former prosecutors, who are paid not to do the right or fair thing, not to see both sides of the story, not to examine the validity of the law itself, but to get more convictions. Don’t people realize that this mindset carries over? When I say this, people overreact and say ‘If this happened, you’d have an officer deciding that laws against murder were not valid, and not arresting people for murder’. I say that that is a stupid example, and entirely not valid in this context. There are basic human rights to liberty, life, and against harm amongst other things that when violated are objectively bad.
Really, there is a lot of evidence that people in general cannot handle power. In one of these experiments where ordinary people were given roles of prisoners and prison guards, the ‘guards’ became sadistic and the prisoners submissive. So imagine how people can become when trained at an academy for much longer that teaches them to revere the law above all , to be in ‘control’, and that what they’re doing is basically ‘good’ no matter what. The fact that often police support censoring basic freedom (as is glaringly obvious in this case) in order to make their job ‘easier’ shows that they don’t care about how others may be feeling or how actions affect other people; they have been conditioned to only care about the police. In fact, they care so much about the police that they’ll flout basic constitutional liberties to ensure expedience.
At least in any realistic society (though I’m not sure about 1000 years in the future), the idea that there is no need for police is completely braindead. But the idea that the police have not overstepped their bounds is also completely braindead. Much of the reason there is so much contempt for them is because they are going beyond what they are supposed to do ideally, which is protect rights, protect people against harm, help in emergency situations, and protect property. Now they are intruding into peoples houses for putting substances in their own body or driving supposedly ‘too fast’ on an open highway in the middle of the night. And in fact, because crime is relatively low in the suburbs, this is the average interaction non inner-city dwellers have with cops, which taints their reputation immensely. Now, I blame the legislature for their incompetence with this, but I also blame the courts and police departments for SUPPORTING it.
One of the ways laws are overturned is when judges and police agencies do not support them or believe them to be unenforceable, thus even if it is not ideal, there is some responsibility here. I also blame the individual officers for not using their minds more, though to a lesser extent. I know you’re going to say its not the cops responsibility to decide which laws to enforce, and I don’t have nearly as much problems with that idea because its ideally true at least, but the problem is that most cops seem to not only support things like this, drug laws, and irrational traffic laws, they want them to be even TOUGHER!
There is a big difference between ‘yeah I don’t like the law but I’ll enforce it anyway the minimum possible because I don’t want to get fired’ and being someone who actually approves of it and wants it to be even more stringent. Now go ahead, I know your first impulse is to think that I’m a ‘dumb kid who has no idea what I’m talking about and is mad because he was arrested’ but thats not the case. There are two sides to this story. The fact that even local courts are supporting this kind of blatantly authoritarian conduct is evidence that they do not care at all about liberty, they care only about expediency, and that the system needs to be completely reworked.
Comment by Brian on 2 September 2010:
By the way, 15 years in prison or even 1 year in prison for recording an arrest, especially since these are already recorded by police themselves would fall under ‘cruel and unusual punishment’, something that is forbidden in our constitution.
Comment by Cry Aboutit on 2 September 2010:
Devil’s advocate here (because all-in-all, I think recording cops is a good idea):
What if you are giving a police report concerning a crime, and the criminal or his friends are recording you so they can later find and harass/threaten you?
Ok, that’s all I had for devil’s advocate.
Not too long ago (but apparently too long to remember where this guy was from) I saw an interview with a police chief who was all excited about getting more military-grade equipment from DHS. At one point he said that getting his officers home safe was his top priority. How noble.
I want officers to go home safe, too, but was I mistaken in believing that their top priority is to uphold the law?
The respect and deference we show police officers used to stem from the fact that, at any moment, they might lay their lives on the line to protect a citizen or pursue a criminal.
Comment by Wayne Jericho on 2 September 2010:
Police videos have a chain of custody to ensure they are not tampered with. Conspiracy theories aside, that makes them better evidence than a guy with an iPhone and a video editor.
Comment by the redcoat on 8 September 2010:
first they came for those filming the police
and i did not speak up because i was not filming the police
Comment by James Madison Fan on 22 September 2010:
Cry,
The Devil needs to explain how not allowing video of cops prevents the criminals from taking video of you making the report so they can harass you since the later is not exclusive of the former? It is already against the law to harass a witness so it appears to me the purpose of this law is not to protect the victim or witness from the criminal; it is to protect the criminal from the victim or witness but only as long as he is a peace officer committing a crime under color of authority. This seems grossly counter intuitive to me.
I would offer officers should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser one and rather than protecting officers who committing crimes under color of authority we should make it a special circumstance because it undermines trust in the people society needs to trust most. Theft, rape, murder and other crimes perpetrated by a peace officer is even more destructive and despicable so the officer should be punished more severely. Of course police unions wouldn’t stand for such a thing and any politician that supported such an idea would be labeled “weak on crime” when the reverse is true. Welcome to Newspeak 2010.
In my opinion “Serve and Protect” died with police that were part of the community they served walking a beat in the neighborhoods they lived in. When my Dad was a kid in Chicago you knew “Officer O’Malley” personally because he lived two blocks down the street. In 2010 the only time the community sees a cop is in their rearview mirror when he turns on his rollers to collect taxes… I mean fines.
“WaketheFup”,
The people are awake and we’re well aware that the primary purpose of the Highway Patrol, motorcycle cops, red light cameras, etc. is money. When my condo got burglarized it took a week for a detective to call me because “there aren’t enough detectives to go around” and the officer that called said there wasn’t enough evidence without so much as talking to me. For all he knew I had the guy in my closet. Santa Ana PD didn’t even send out a cop when one of my neighbors saw kids vandalizing our mailboxes and stealing letters. An officer showed up the next day and took a report which was promptly filed and forgotten. It cost thousands of dollars to replace the mailboxes. Three weeks later a motorcycle cop had plenty of time to write me a ticket for making a left hand turn without a signal that he made up whole cloth because I had the audacity to tell him to quite tailgating. Such insolence for a citizen demands retribution!
Here’s an idea. Take the cop off the cycle and give him a real job where he actually tries to find the pukes that stole a couple grand from me after destroying my front door and a window rather than “protecting” people from someone that “executed a left hand turn without a signal” from the left hand turn lane regulated by a left hand turn arrow. Can you seriously offer that represents any sort of threat to the community?
When cops are more interested in writing a $250 ticket (plus penalty assessment) for failing to turn on a blinker than trying to find the scum that broke into my home you shouldn’t be surprised when community respect for PD is on a par with the politicians and the IRS. Considering how punitive the fines are for “infractions” it should be small wonder that the typical citizen sees the police as persecutors rather than protectors.
Instead of being annoyed with the community for failing to support the police, the police should be angry with the politicians for turning them into a “revenue stream.” Have you ever considered that?
Pingback by Houston Area Liberty Campaign » Blog Archive » How to Record the Cops on 25 September 2010:
[...] http://www.lawcollective.org/article.php?id=94 http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/are-cameras-the-new-guns/ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html [...]
Comment by Joe on 27 September 2010:
That comment about the police is funny. The police came into people’s homes to illegal take property in New Orleans, then as soon as they left gangs came in and took the rest.
Comment by Silence Dogood on 30 September 2010:
“This is an official message, YOU may be subject to random recordings to promote quality insurance, if you do not agree to this hang up.. I mean quit your job and find something else to do. Cause you’re likely up to no good if this irks you.”
Comment by Fkdapolizei on 6 October 2010:
So now if your get arrested because you were recorded to something illegal on one of the street corner cameras, you can sue the state for illegal recording right? technically, you never gave them permission to record you.
Comment by jjj on 28 October 2010:
Comment by notAmused on 2 June 2010:
“Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal … Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested.”
If all parties must consent, does that mean that the police can’t use video from their dashboard cams if the perpetrator does not consent??
Comment by Erin on 8 November 2010:
If it is illegal to film police force why is it not illegal to film citizens with hidden cameras throughout every community, without their consent or knowledge. Cameras are on utility polls invading privacy are everywhere. Public streets are only public for the police? We are quickly becoming a police state. Research the numbers people: of our population in jails and prisons compared to the rest of the world. We lock up more people than any other country on earth and arrest more people why one answer dollars for fines dollars for court costs dollars for probation fees dollars for jail commitments inmates get a bill for jail time in Wisconsin I am certain it is not the only state. Educate yourself on what violations are felonies I think you would be shocked. The changes in sentencing that started in the nineties should shock you. The people charged with felonies for turning on a camera will never be allowed to vote agin if the charges stick get the picture (no pun intended)
Comment by adam on 8 November 2010:
well guess ima just start carrying guns
Comment by ROb on 15 November 2010:
The video camera charges against Anthony were dismissed.
See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=12K10000647&loc=56&detailLoc=K
Comment by Brian on 25 November 2010:
Please update this article. CNN cites it today (Nov 25) in an article about videoing security checkpoints and TSA. Maryland is not as cited. Graber charges were dropped. The DA knew he had a weak case, pursued it anyway under the guise of “want the lawmakers to clarify the law”
Comment by Marcus on 25 November 2010:
this is why everyone hates cops. my personal opinion, tape cops who breaking the law. Show the public the truth about how they break the laws they are supposed to uphold. I grew up in NYC and ive NEVER trusted a cop EVER. They’re not around to “protect and serve” the people. they protect their own asses and serve themselves. Trust me i know this first-hand. The reason why lawmakers are making laws against video taping on-duty cops. They cant do whatever the fuck they want anymore. Why the hell would a cop consent to a recording that is damaging his credibility?! if a video shows an officer abusing it should be allowed in court.
Pingback by Is America on the Road to Fascism? « Doug’s Darkworld on 12 December 2010:
[...] illegal in three states now to photograph a cop that is arresting you in a public place, yeah, you can’t witness your own arrest apparently. Then there’s the so called “Free Speech Zones,” more police per capita than any [...]
Comment by SimonSays on 31 December 2010:
Find a way to change that law without changing the intent of it. Find a way to change it so that filming any law enforcement is legal.
Comment by antpvill86@gmail.com on 6 February 2011:
i was actually waiting on a good time to air my mother being over powered by a couple of Cohoes N.Y. police due to a misunderstanding at the hospital she was brought to on behalf of a situation regarding a stroke scare. the police were overly “rough” leaving scars on my mother’s wrists. both of the offending officers faces and car numbers were recorded. as well as my mothers screams for help. I’m very upset at this video and hope it will help in civil rights violation cases in the future.
Comment by Hyboost on 22 February 2011:
I was threatened with arrested a couple days ago because I was said I was recording a conversation at a hospital where my sister was a patient & was being treated poorly. We were asking for a porta potty, (not a bedpan) for her. She has had her second leg amputated (now she has no legs) All the I.V. drugs they were giving her gave her diarea very badly & couldnt use a bedpan for obvious reasons. She can’t get to the bathroom because, again, no legs & room was too small for a wheelchair to fit into the bathroom. I know, hard to believe, that’s where the video would have come into play. We have been asking nurses for 5 hours to bring a potty into her room. She didnt have to go at that moment but we knew when she had to go it would be an emergency. Well after hearing several nurses say we have no pottys available, My bro in law asked if we could go to other floors to look for one. I said to him loud enough for the nurses at the station to hear, “Tom, speak up, I’m recording this, we might need it to prove our case.” The nurse said we can try another floor but none are available. So he & I walked to the next floor and asked at a nurse station if they had any extra pottys. The nurse said it shouldnt be a problem & walked into 2 rooms and brought out a extra potty from the 2nd room. We thanked her & started walking back towards the eleavator. My bro in law has a broken leg & has a walking cast so we were limping back when 6 police officers surrounded us & asked what we were doing. We told them the story & said the nurses reported us as being loud & swearing at them & taking videos. I said I mentioned I should video but didnt, they took my phone & went through it & looked at all my pics & vids, none of which were of the hospital. He then said it was against HIPPA laws to take vids @ hospital & again I said I didnt, you just checked. He said then you must have erased them & kicked us out. We asked if we could bring the chair up to her room & help her on it because she cant do it herself & the nurses were too busy. He said no. My bro in law said Visiting hours are till 8 & thats when he will leave. The cop said then you are under arrest for trespassing. Then said I could be under arrest for violating HIPPA laws. Again, no vids were found in my phone but I guess they don’t let facts get in the way. I can see the tresspassing laws but that isn’t why I was threatened with arrest. Nice huh? Even if there were vids, I said loud enough to the nurse about the recording & she never said that I couldnt do that. Anyhow, that’s what happens in a police state like NY. But in the end, the cops didnt arrest us but did go through all my personal videos & erased one by mistake of a recient vacation of me & my family.
Pingback by The Graveyard, The Empire and The Ugly (Truth) | Connect the Dots on 28 February 2011:
[...] Doesn’t allow its citizens to film its police; [...]
Comment by Kagirion on 1 March 2011:
Laws are for the poor anyway.
Paris hilton in prison, what a depressingly-monotone laugh that was.
Comment by Big Bythi on 23 March 2011:
“Cameras or guns, one of y’all is gonna shoot me to death.”
-Ace Rock
Comment by LeftoverVictim on 21 April 2011:
This is insane. How far will the government go before people understand that the police aren’t the good guys here! They take away our rights, beat the shit out of us if we think freely, and then stop production of proof of corruption within their ranks? People need to wake up from the American Dream, this world is one prison, and the police are just the guards. I too will leave with a quote.
“Bite the hand that feeds you, only if it keeps you from feeding yourself.”
Comment by suze parker on 6 May 2011:
reply to hyboost, I am in the UK I am a student at sussex university, as part of my studies I have just watched the Michael Moore film Sicko which examines the Healthcare Policies in your country, I am sorry for the way you were treated and deplore the idea that people are being denied the opportunity to highlight their rights and wrongs committed against them, however American citizens need to be more aware of the actions of their governments and not allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking that the american dream is alive and well and socialism is an evil condition that needs to be eradicated, Social healthcare policies are a good thing, stand up and be counted American, start petitioning your government, radicalise yourselves, neo-liberal policies are dangerous for your health – literally
Comment by Some Canadian on 4 June 2011:
*Meanwhile, across the border, G20 happened.*
Cops fucking suck but legislation for their improvement ain’t happening. To quote South Park, “If you don’t like America then you can just get out!”. Portugal completely decriminalized drugs, Mexico allows a certain amount of anything etc, there’s options for getting the fuck out.
What if you can’t teach yourself a foreign language and apply for citizenship in the time you want to not be shit on by cops? Free Man on the Land Movement. http://freemanontheland.com/
You can apply to be a sovereign, revoke your social security card but be allowed to publicly drink, drive (safely) with no license, etc. One of my friends who is one is eligible for $1,000,000 in gold bars if he ever gets arrested for non-common law disruptions. (in Canada, the USA one is primarily skinhead for some reason and what you can do’s probably different so I’ve heard)
Really, this sort of thing WILL change, it’s just that it’ll take more than 100 years so we’ll all be long dead before then, so either you find a lifetime solution for yourself or you suck it up, you can’t bitch and then not try to help yourself/other people if possible.
Comment by Diddybeats High Performance In-ear Headphones on 22 June 2011:
Raburn(notes) and a one-out single in the fourth by Casper Wells(notes).“He’s really good. He’s a great kid and he has tremendous stuff, obviously,” said Penny, whose final season with the Dodgers coincided with Kershaw’s Diddybeats High Performance rookie campaign. “I’d like to tell you I taught him everything.”Penny (5-6) gave up seven hits over six innings, struck out four and walked three. The two-time All-Star, who spent parts of five seasons with Los Angeles, is 1-3 with a 6.00 ERA over his last six starts after winning three straight.
Comment by Gary Schnell on 26 June 2011:
Not much more to say other then this,…What ever we continue to tolerate, we must surly expect more of.It’s just that simple.
Comment by AgreeToDisagree on 2 July 2011:
If you don’t like the judgment or feel it was irregular, do not accept the judgment or punishment, and take the Circuit Judge or the member of Jury to the Supreme Court. If that doesn’t work, try the UNHCR or ICC, which should be a long waited first for supposedly Human Rights compliant USA.
Comment by Agent156 on 3 July 2011:
It is not illegal in Maryland, or arguably any where but Illinois. And that wont last long. Don’t feed their propaganda machine.
Here is the Maryland Attorney General explaining why they couldn’t prosecute Anthony Graber (the guy with the helmet cam).
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/md-youtube.pdf
Pingback by World Report, 18th July 2011 – Radio Shows, Documentaries, News Articles on Governmental and Corporate Corruption, World-Wide Protests, Crimes Against Humanity, Imperialism, Genocide, War, Finance and Much More. « The Global Awakening on 18 July 2011:
[...] Are Cameras the New Guns? [...]
Pingback by Cops and Citizens and Cameras and Conflict | Questionable Things on 29 July 2011:
[...] of police behaving badly toward citizen journalists that it should warrant concern. Especially when several states make it illegal for citizens to videotape police in a public [...]
Pingback by Legal to Video a Cop Encounter? - Grasscity.com Forums on 1 August 2011:
[...] Legal to Video a Cop Encounter? Actually, in some states it is illegal.. As stupid as that is Are Cameras the New Guns? | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty __________________ "God if I have to die you will have to die" My attempt at making [...]
Comment by batdawg on 31 August 2011:
what are the other 9 states ?
Comment by batdawg on 31 August 2011:
ron paul stickers, gibson guitars, kids lemonade stands, backyard gardens, amish cheese,butter & eggs, quoting the constitution and now owing gold & silver coinage are more treasonist racist items & activities the fuhrer and his brown shirts find objectionable –
what a transparent joke this globalist nwo has become – the’ve pretty much succeeded in stamping out all us employment other than working for one of their controlled systems
Comment by y@ on 15 September 2011:
That’s just plain idiotic.
Film everybody except a police officer. I’m surprised there is a group of people that think that makes sense. If a cop is doing a good it shouldn’t matter if he is being recorded and even if a case goes to court he’d most likely be off the hook. That said being filmed should not matter if they are doing their job porperly. Of course this probably printed in a very small section of the news paper if at all.
If anything you are taking forms of evidence away making justice for ordinary people who were abused by cops illegal.
This just upsets me a great deal.
Comment by prunejuice on 18 September 2011:
Cops can record us but we can’t record them? no, whoever lobbied to get this law passed needs to get shot in the face while they are at home asleep in bed.
Comment by Warren Smith on 18 September 2011:
How will security cameras at ATMs, parking lots and other locations be treated?
Will their information be allowed as evidence in only a limited class of applications or will they be open to use in all types of legal proceedings?
Comment by Welcom2FascistAmerica on 25 October 2011:
Cops dash cams should be illegal by this reading of the law then. But it won’t be. These are just the first signs of our fascist government expanding its iron grip on the country, while distracting you with petty issues.
Comment by Anonymous on 17 November 2011:
This is absolutely insane. The police in this country are becoming bigger scumbags by the day. The government wonders why citizens hate the police and justice system in this country, and this is precisely why. I’m sorry but if we cannot defend myself with pure evidence against police brutality perhaps we should treat them the way they do us? I mean, I know personally if I had an encounter such as this with one of these officers, I’d make a point to catch the scumbag out of uniform.
Comment by sonbird on 20 November 2011:
“The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world.” How do you people think we get so many put in what is now private contracting firms called jails for Violent and nonviolent crimes .!”United States, showed for each state that the proportion of blacks in prison populations exceeded the proportion of whites among state residents in every state. In twenty states, the percent of blacks incarcerated was at least five times greater than their share of resident population.” Rate of female incarceration increased fivefold in a two decade span ending in 2001 ” youth detention facilities, the prosecution of youths as adults and the long term consequences of incarceration on the individual’s chances for success in adulthood.” The cops and judges work for crooks who owns these jails ..! “Feb 24, 2009 – Injustice for sale — Judges jail children for money. Two judges plead guilty in Pennsylvania to putting children in jail for money. …Now it really looks like to me we need to defend our kids and our self ..! There is plenty of evidence that innocent people were put to death and incarcerated for nothing and yet we as a civil people do noting about all this ..You and I are just lucky we have not had an encountered with such so called officers ..! Terror was invented ..! People in jail reflects the dozens of ways different countries define a terrorist. China has arrested more than 7000 people under such definitions . More people were guillotined in Germany during Hitler’s time, than in France . The people in Germany were called Terrorist if they didn’t like Hitler …! Terror has become the most convenient method to incarcerate set up by Congress and the Bushs who family backed Hitler and yet Americans “It has become the most convenient method by which you wrap yourselves in the American flag in order to cover up some of the greasy stains on the legislative toga. We are all in trouble because Americans are lazy and dumb down by propaganda to educate and ” Think for Themselves ” I sensed an opportunity to clarify that the problem is tyranny sense I am Native American and know what this government is capable of !
Comment by CJC on 21 November 2011:
Please sign the petition to legalize the videotaping on-duty police officers!
http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-legalize-recording-video-of-on-duty-police-officers
Comment by JMM on 17 December 2011:
I wonder if they get both party’s consent before the police dash cam video gets slapped together with a terrible voice over and put on TV.
Comment by Jazzy Jenna on 14 January 2012:
I’m Canadian and even in this country there have been cases of Police officers going far beyond the scope of their job . A teen girl at a house party.. a toy poodle pet… held face down on the ground and repeatedly tasered… her dog.. Police claimed as dangerous and was also repeatedly tazered.
A man spent 14 years in prison .. Police later admitted they knew from the second day in custody he was innocent.. so they proceeded to Frame him .”public record”
Many other cases much worse… American cases have proven on average to be MUCH worse. it’s not a matter of police needing to ban public recording of their actions to protect themselves from criminals..it’s protecting themselves from prosecution for their own breach of law.
Pingback by A Million Eyes on Big Brother | on 28 January 2012:
[...] their heads to capture every second of police activity. Some states have even gone so far as to ban the recording of an on-duty police officer. Thankfully, in August, a federal court upheld the right to videotape such activity as being [...]
Comment by Ativan and alcohol on 2 February 2012:
yrclwuifgsffnbopomjof, Ativan online, FRPfoKR, [url=http://www.solcacuenca.org/ativan.html]Cheap ativan online[/url], rZZpyQk, http://www.solcacuenca.org/ativan.html Ativan 2 mg, pmCoCNO.
Comment by Ambien 10mg on 2 February 2012:
gpdcduifgsffnbopomjof, What color is ambien cr, BElMyHq, [url=http://www.nordinez.com/]Ambien habit[/url], DJeGDeJ, http://www.nordinez.com/ Ambien law suits, HiVndCf.
Comment by Hcg diet? on 2 February 2012:
wpgkzuifgsffnbopomjof, Diy hcg diet, zrbSPJX, [url=http://twelescope.com/]Hcg diet plans[/url], QtSFVUT, http://twelescope.com/ Hcg diet risks, OcGITSK.
Comment by Ambien 10mg on 3 February 2012:
hlfoxuifgsffnbopomjof, Hours ambien works, yaKXHRI, [url=http://www.cwband.org/ambien.html]Buy ambien online without prescription[/url], RdGKkNy, http://www.cwband.org/ambien.html Ambien withdrawal symptoms, MFmBIbG.
Comment by Breast enlargement new york city on 3 February 2012:
geecmuifgsffnbopomjof, Breast enlargement albuquerque, IEeeBOl, [url=http://biggerbreastsize.com/]Breast enlargement south jersey[/url], wMYKhxO, http://biggerbreastsize.com/ Breast enlargement fl, HDkuXOd.
Comment by Buy lunesta without prescription on 3 February 2012:
zrdlfuifgsffnbopomjof, Can person on blood thinner take lunesta, NPAMFDW, [url=http://www.intermezzocoffeehouse.com/lunesta.html]Lunesta generic[/url], rpVkmta, http://www.intermezzocoffeehouse.com/lunesta.html Cost of lunesta, OlDeakl.
Comment by Description diazepam on 3 February 2012:
ohgmjuifgsffnbopomjof, Diazepam omeprazole, KCwpgWr, [url=http://danielduncan.net/art.html]Liquid diazepam[/url], TgInnew, http://danielduncan.net/art.html Diazepam, ZhzJCDo.
Comment by Hcg diet plans on 3 February 2012:
embvcuifgsffnbopomjof, Hcg diet foods, ikLpopg, [url=http://hcgdietexpertszone.com/]Calculating food weight for hcg diet[/url], OFeFDdY, http://hcgdietexpertszone.com/ What to eat on hcg diet, zJFqCRu.
Comment by Cat breeds pictures on 3 February 2012:
sgbthuifgsffnbopomjof, Cat hoarding pictures, peGWxQp, [url=http://tomorrowwebdesigns.com/]Cats Pictures[/url], XgxXLCc, http://tomorrowwebdesigns.com/ Cat Pictures, zuMApcL.
Comment by Hours ambien works on 3 February 2012:
kowreuifgsffnbopomjof, Trazodone and ambien, lfDIUmA, [url=http://www.hvpartnership.org/]Ambien[/url], hqBXlMt, http://www.hvpartnership.org/ Ambien canadian, sAKhLVd.
Comment by Best affordable term life insurance online on 3 February 2012:
wlyqcuifgsffnbopomjof, Life Insurance, Rooidaf, [url=http://ruawake.com/]Prudential life insurance[/url], boyVSmw, http://ruawake.com/ Universal life insurance, cxReXmq.
Comment by Diazepam suppliers generics on 3 February 2012:
unayvuifgsffnbopomjof, Diazepam effects on liver, MyWTNnc, [url=http://danielduncan.net/art.html]Dog and diazepam[/url], BMNNtGW, http://danielduncan.net/art.html Description diazepam, ScxidIL.
Comment by Life Insurance on 3 February 2012:
lckdyuifgsffnbopomjof, 5 year term life insurance quote, uwNLpwA, [url=http://ruawake.com/]Prudential life insurance[/url], SCHnPgm, http://ruawake.com/ Cheap term life insurance, FUPjjPQ.