Police State in action

Linky

Growing Number of Prosecutions for Videotaping the Police

Prosecutions Draw Attention to Influence of Witness Videos

By RAY SANCHEZ July 19, 2010

That Anthony Graber broke the law in early March is indisputable. He raced his Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95 in Maryland at 80 mph, popping a wheelie, roaring past cars and swerving across traffic lanes.

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket. It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

[more in linked story]

I hate to point the finger at cops, cuz I know they have an INCREDIBLY tough job every single day, but some of them have a real God complex. I know a majority are upstanding people, but seriously, of the ones I know personally, most clearly show the capability of being an ignorant berkely on a powertrip (not that regular people dont possess this as well, I just dont have the right to detain you or use deadly force when Im going off).

To me this isn't about the officer or even whether he did something wrong.

Its about a law that makes it illegal to protect yourself against abuse. It is illegal to record police but it is not illegal for them to record you - its the beginning of unquestionable tyranny.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: To me this isn't about the officer or even whether he did something wrong. Its about a law that makes it illegal to protect yourself against abuse. It is illegal to record police but it is not illegal for them to record you - its the beginning of unquestionable tyranny.

Bingo Bango Bongo. This is really sickening. See also: The report Stossel did a few weeks ago on the huge increase in SWAT raids. Freaking scary stuff. I skimmed through the op'd article and didn't see any mention of it, but Boortz said today that the police also raided the dude's parents' house and confiscated computers, etc.

If you get a chance to see the Stossel thing, do it. Here's a sneek peek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html

This makes me very angry. I am writing letters to my representatives and senators today. I recommend that everyone that sees this writes as well. Braden

NOFX noise on the subject.

ansonivan wrote: NOFX noise on the subject.

That was some punk plagiarism there...

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.

-- Martin Niemöller

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: -- Martin Niemöller

I grew up around a bunch of German WWII religious refugees, heard that poem about every six seconds

I like nofx's take on it.

Seems hard to believe how this will hold up under "illegal wiretapping". Taping or taking pictures in public are generally OK, certainly if you let someone know that they are being taped. I am not sure how they can justify the restriction just because it involves a policeman. I don't see this surviving a Supreme court review (if it even needs to go that far).

Hey, look at it this way, at least it gives the ACLU something to do that everyone will agree with again...

aircooled wrote: Seems hard to believe how this will hold up under "illegal wiretapping". Taping or taking pictures in public are generally OK, certainly if you let someone know that they are being taped. I am not sure how they can justify the restriction just because it involves a policeman. I don't see this surviving a Supreme court review (if it even needs to go that far). Hey, look at it this way, at least it gives the ACLU something to do that everyone will agree with again...

MD's wiretapping and privacy provision laws are in a weird state of flux right now. Pretty good summation here. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this go all the way up to the Supremes.

ACLU and NAMBLA.

ansonivan - always good for bringin' the NOFX. Cosmically coincidental, as I just bought a replacement copy of White Trash, Two Heebs and a Bean about a half-hour ago.

alex wrote: ... I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this go all the way up to the Supremes.

As disgusting as all of this is, I fail to see what Florence Ballard, Mary Wilson, Diana Ross, and Betty McGlown are going to do about it.

Thats me in the streets with a violin under my chin, playin with a grin, singin gibberish...

Anyway, a letter will be written to my senator. Good times fellas, good times

Wiretapping? Huh? This happened out in public, I see no reasonable assumption that this was a private transaction. What if I had taped it from a car passing by? The police are certainly following a different standard than is set for the rest of us it seems.

And I wish there was audio. Some guy cuts me off and pulls a gun, I am shooting first and asking questions later. (and by shooting I mean pooping myself) Did he have lights or a siren, did he identify himself as an officer, and if so, why would I believe him? Why not flash a badge instead of a gun? Good way to get yourself shot or run over.

And how the hell do you not notice a camera on the guys head? He had no reason to believe the cop was a cop... coulda been some random nutjob that wanted to pull a gun and be a jerkbag....

pinchvalve wrote: Wiretapping? Huh? This happened out in public, I see no reasonable assumption that this was a private transaction. What if I had taped it from a car passing by? The police are certainly following a different standard than is set for the rest of us it seems.

Actually some states are two party recording states so it is fact not legal to videotape the police.

I tried to get the dash cam off the officer who "pulled me at gunpoint" to no avail. Not available to public at least not here in California about 8 years ago.

mndsm wrote: And how the hell do you not notice a camera on the guys head? He had no reason to believe the cop was a cop... coulda been some random nutjob that wanted to pull a gun and be a jerkbag....

To me - it does not matter if he knew. It should not, under any circumstances be illegal for you to tape them - as long as they can tape you or while it is legal for a mall to have security cameras, etc. The distinction here is that they are beyond reproach and should not be held accountable.

pinchvalve wrote: And I wish there was audio. Some guy cuts me off and pulls a gun, I am shooting first and asking questions later. (and by shooting I mean pooping myself) Did he have lights or a siren, did he identify himself as an officer, and if so, why would I believe him? Why not flash a badge instead of a gun? Good way to get yourself shot or run over.

WTF? Why does he come out of the car with his gun drawn and no badge?

It is pretty ironic that you cannot video tape a police officer in public because of "illegal wiretapping" yet the government can literally Illegally Wiretap you if they suspect you of being a "terrorist".

Is there any real definition for "terrorist" BTW. I suspect you could easily classify the Tea Party organization as a terrorist organization if you tried hard enough... and probably the ACLU while you are at it... they are both in the business of working against the government (in a way).

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

mndsm wrote: And how the hell do you not notice a camera on the guys head? He had no reason to believe the cop was a cop... coulda been some random nutjob that wanted to pull a gun and be a jerkbag....

To me - it does not matter if he knew. It should not, under any circumstances be illegal for you to tape them - as long as they can tape you or while it is legal for a mall to have security cameras, etc. The distinction here is that they are beyond reproach and should not be held accountable.

And therein lies the problem. The cop in question (I've seen the video, he does absolutely nothing to do what I'd consider identifying himself as a cop) was acting WAY outside of his sworn duty. What he did was just plain reckless. Had he screwed the cut just a little bit, or had the biker not been paying attention, there could have been one dead motorcyclist. Cop would have gotten off too.

You guys are missing the point here. It does not make one bit of difference if the cop did exactly the right thing, something illegal, broke protoc... whatever.... what is the problem is that the guy on the bike was ARRESTED FOR FILMING IT.

Does that mean if I film an undercover cop taking down a liquor store gunman with my security camera... I am breaking the law? Can they seize the tape from me or is it MY tape if there is something I find interesting about it? When do you become a criminal then? When you are trying to clear your name, or when you embarrass the department?

Its not about this particular cop at all.
The implications here are HUGE.

Laws that prohibit us from watching those who watch us are completely unacceptable. A law enforcement officer making a public arrest should have zero expectation of privacy.

There is no way this trend holds up- there are way way way too many recording devices out there for municipalities and or the states to control all of them. The courts are going to frown on this stuff including this case, precedent will be set, and everybody is going to get used to the idea that every meaningful transaction is being recorded.

What about cops who go get video tapes from stores that have been robbed to help ID the culprit. Seems to me a lot of crooks are going to get off. The cops are participating in an illegal wiretapping case, because the store is recording everybody that comes in. Few ever post a sign stating they are doing so.