• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HellsSaints proned at gunpoint in Muskegon

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
In situations such as this, there are a few things that I think are required to be said. Obviously we must remain silent. However, I think the following should be the script:

"I am exercising my 1st amendment right to record this interaction. I am exercising my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. I am exercising my 4th amendment rights and not consenting to unlawful search and seizure. And I will now exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent."

Its worked for me in the past, and may work for others. Some people dont say anything, period. And some are quite funny, like this.
 

Raggs

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2012
Messages
1,181
Location
Wild Wild West Michigan
In situations such as this, there are a few things that I think are required to be said. Obviously we must remain silent. However, I think the following should be the script:

"I am exercising my 1st amendment right to record this interaction. I am exercising my 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. I am exercising my 4th amendment rights and not consenting to unlawful search and seizure. And I will now exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent."

Its worked for me in the past, and may work for others. Some people dont say anything, period. And some are quite funny, like this.

Personally I would not mention the recording. Like the rest though.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Especially in a state like VA, I agree. Some states require that you inform the 2nd party. Not sure about MI.
All-Parties Consent Statutes States:

Michigan
- Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties.
http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/27/state-by-state-recording-laws/

750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation.
Sec. 539c.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hc...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Individuals may be criticized for their behavior, but choice of words is important - no reason to call someone a th*g, A-h*l, b*itch, d*ick when a simple "unacceptable" or "egregious conduct" describes it quite well.

Categorizing or demonizing a group as such a manner is the biggest problem.
I disagree and categorically so. The OP links to a video where a citizen (all of them?) was "proned" out, by a cop (more than one cop?) for lawful behavior. That act defines the individual who employed lethal force without justification.

On this forum, one will generally be given an explanation and frequently a warning when transgressions occur before other tools are utilized. There is no good reason to make yourself a target for administrative action detrimental to your ability to post here. We are all guests and should be responsibly adult enough to conduct ourselves in a manner acceptable to the wishes of John and Mike - positive public relations are most important - legislators, media, interested gun owners, antis et al read these pages.
This friendly reminder is noted and will be heeded.

Anyway, that encounter should only have recorded the cops talking, not a peep from the citizens. If a cop prones me out for lawful behavior there will only be my lawyer speaking for me at a later date.

It is unfortunate that those citizens engaged in "friendly" banter with those unacceptable cops for their egregious behavior.
 

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
All-Parties Consent Statutes States:

Michigan
- Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties.
http://www.detectiveservices.com/2012/02/27/state-by-state-recording-laws/

750.539c Eavesdropping upon private conversation.
Sec. 539c.
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hc...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c

And yet various Circuit Courts have held that recording public officials in the course of their official duties cannot be prohibited by state laws. eg 1st Circuit Court in Glik v. Cunliffe, 7th Circuit Court in ACLU v. Alvarez (Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal).

MI is in the 6th district, but these other cases would give application since the SCOTUS did not reverse the 7th's decision.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
And yet various Circuit Courts have held that recording public officials in the course of their official duties cannot be prohibited by state laws. eg 1st Circuit Court in Glik v. Cunliffe, 7th Circuit Court in ACLU v. Alvarez (Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal).

MI is in the 6th district, but these other cases would give application since the SCOTUS did not reverse the 7th's decision.
Understand that very well. My purpose was only to answer the question as to what the law/statute was in Michigan.

Would hope that the 6[SUP]th [/SUP]district would reach the same verdict. Representatives of our government should not be able to hide behind a cloak of invisibility when in the performance of their jobs. Digital recorders are great tools; video recordings, especially with audio, surpass alternative means. When all one has is "he said/she said," they will likely find yourself holding the short end of the stick.
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
And yet various Circuit Courts have held that recording public officials in the course of their official duties cannot be prohibited by state laws. eg 1st Circuit Court in Glik v. Cunliffe, 7th Circuit Court in ACLU v. Alvarez (Supreme Court refused to hear the state's appeal).

MI is in the 6th district, but these other cases would give application since the SCOTUS did not reverse the 7th's decision.

The key is in the wording 'private conversation'.

The incident took place on public property, and regardless courts have ruled that police have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing their duties. Don't have that cite right now... does someone?
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
This isn't complicated, you cannot eavesdrop on/overhear a conversation you are a party to. Thus, Michigan is a one party consent state for recording a conversation the person recording is a part of. It would be utterly foolish and misguided for an ocer in Michigan to avoid recording based on eavesdropping law fears.
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
This isn't complicated, you cannot eavesdrop on/overhear a conversation you are a party to. Thus, Michigan is a one party consent state for recording a conversation the person recording is a part of. It would be utterly foolish and misguided for an ocer in Michigan to avoid recording based on eavesdropping law fears.

I was merely pointing out that, although IANAL, it would seem to me that recording a cop's conversation with someone, even if you were NOT party to it, should be fine since it is not a 'private conversation' if had under circumstances that would negate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
If recording public officials was illegal in MI, myself and many other posters in this thread would be sitting in jail in MI!

Many police are honest, however some are less than. Not recording makes it your word against a bad officers word, usually a bad bet, seeing as the officers word is considered to be expert testimony by most courts. The amount of dash cam video & officer mic recordings that get " lost" is startling, without your own recording you are pretty much screwed IMHO.
 
Last edited:

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
If recording public officials was illegal in MI, myself and many other posters in this thread would be sitting in jail in MI!

Many police are honest, however some are less than. Not recording makes it your word against a bad officers word, usually a bad bet, seeing as the officers word is considered to be expert testimony by most courts. The amount of dash cam video & officer mic recordings that get " lost" is startling, without your own recording you are pretty much screwed IMHO.

Be careful what you wish for.

There are hundreds of videos out there of people getting arrested for "wiretapping" in a state where its clearly legal to record audio and video in a public place. For some police employees, much to the same as the ones in the video and their take on carrying guns, its about what THEY believe the law says. If a police employee in that video had ordered them to stop recording as their interpretation of the law, and the victims failed to comply with that obvious unlawful order, chances are they would have gone to jail. So, given that, we live in a society where the police employees are allowed over and over again to freely violate our rights with no personal responsibility. They just chalk it up as "following orders" and "officer safety".
 
Last edited:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
The key is in the wording 'private conversation'.

In the specific cite of MI law, I read as:

Person #1 speaking, not recording
Person #2 speaking, and recording
Person #3 present but not part of conversation, and recording

Person #2 legal without asking permission from #1; Person #3 not legal without permission from both others.

The incident took place on public property, and regardless courts have ruled that police have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing their duties. Don't have that cite right now... does someone?

Did I not provide 2 cites?

I completely agree with Michigander.

edit: I agree with your second post.
 
Last edited:

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
In the specific cite of MI law, I read as:

Person #1 speaking, not recording
Person #2 speaking, and recording
Person #3 present but not part of conversation, and recording

Person #2 legal without asking permission from #1; Person #3 not legal without permission from both others.



Did I not provide 2 cites?

I completely agree with Michigander.

edit: I agree with your second post.

first post was only making second post's point, I was saying I didn't have time to find a cite, not calling you out. No worries mate.

I think #3 is legal in a public area where no reasonable expectation of privacy can be had.
 
Last edited:

kubel

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
285
Location
, ,
Categorizing or demonizing a group as such a manner is the biggest problem.

It's only a problem if one is miscategorizing. What if they aren't? What if the entire profession actually is thuggish?

What if the paychecks of police officers are funded almost exclusively by extortion (taxation)? One might classify extortion as thuggery.

What if the job requires (as in, it's not discretionary) the enforcement of legislation, often by means of initiatory force, and often against those who do not consent to being ruled by legislators- and in the course of that enforcement, violates the non-aggression principle. For example, arresting or fining individuals for victimless crimes, where the only complainant is government, and the only aggressor is the police officer. One might define this as thuggery as well.

What if it's largely overlooked or legitimized by society that has been taught that obeying authority is a virtue, and being a cop is an honorable duty? Does that mean the entire profession of "cop" isn't thuggery?

Can someone make the argument that they don't think it's possible to be a cop and not receive a paycheck largely funded by extortion, or to be a cop and not violate the non-aggression principle in the course of their daily duties?

In my shoes as an anarchist, the entire group of "cop" is categorized correctly as "thugs". In the shoes of a statist, it may not be.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It's only a problem if one is miscategorizing. What if they aren't? What if the entire profession actually is thuggish?

What if the paychecks of police officers are funded almost exclusively by extortion (taxation)? One might classify extortion as thuggery.

What if the job requires (as in, it's not discretionary) the enforcement of legislation, often by means of initiatory force, and often against those who do not consent to being ruled by legislators- and in the course of that enforcement, violates the non-aggression principle. For example, arresting or fining individuals for victimless crimes, where the only complainant is government, and the only aggressor is the police officer. One might define this as thuggery as well.

What if it's largely overlooked or legitimized by society that has been taught that obeying authority is a virtue, and being a cop is an honorable duty? Does that mean the entire profession of "cop" isn't thuggery?

Can someone make the argument that they don't think it's possible to be a cop and not receive a paycheck largely funded by extortion, or to be a cop and not violate the non-aggression principle in the course of their daily duties?

In my shoes as an anarchist, the entire group of "cop" is categorized correctly as "thugs". In the shoes of a statist, it may not be.

We could "what if" until the cows come home.

Bottom line is that OCDO is private property and all agree by virtue of registering to abide by the Forum Rules. Violation of those rules will not be well accepted and is not without potential repercussions.

Strongly suggest that no group be so categorized.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
I am not quite an anarchist, but rather a libertarian who leans off in that direction, and I can't say I can or would argue that point, rather I have often made it.

It does strike me as bizarre for this forum to shut out the dissenting opinion of the most pure freedom activists, but at least I don't see the harm in it since it's not like we're about to make much of a difference in how if when and why cops get paid.
 
Top