Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Filming/photographing in public space relevant to open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Filming/photographing in public space relevant to open carry

    Filming and photographing in public is extremely relevant to open carry and so it would follow that cases related to filming and photographing in public also relevant.

    Many cases of police attempting to prevent and stop public from filming or photographing them during detentions or arrests of open carriers have been documented, even very recently.
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Frozen Tundra, , USA
    Posts
    88
    So?

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Makes sense. Both are perfectly fine activities that only elitists would have a problem with, and they are probably the top two things elitists hate, because they so openly expose the lack of elitism that the elitists pretend to have.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz272 View Post
    So?
    See attached.

    Basically what we have here is a topic that actually IS PERFECTLY relevant to open carry, but the powers to be had a distaste for this particular case and used an illegitimate excuse to close the thread instead of just telling the truth which would have been "I don't like this case being discussed here"

    So, here's a thread where we can have the exact same discussion without referencing that case that the powers to be would rather sweep under the rug.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	lockedthread.png 
Views:	160 
Size:	13.3 KB 
ID:	12371  
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 02-08-2015 at 12:07 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    See attached.

    Basically what we have here is a topic that actually IS PERFECTLY relevant to open carry, but the powers to be had a distaste for this particular case and used an illegitimate excuse to close the thread instead of just telling the truth which would have been "I don't like this case being discussed here"

    So, here's a thread where we can have the exact same discussion without referencing that case that the powers to be would rather sweep under the rug.
    Agreed that filming or recording audio should not be infringed. LEO's are public servants and as long as one is not interfering with their job, one should be able to document encounters.

    I couldn't open the thumbnails for some reason.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Agreed that filming or recording audio should not be infringed. LEO's are public servants and as long as one is not interfering with their job, one should be able to document encounters.

    I couldn't open the thumbnails for some reason.
    Basically there was a case of someone filming in public, but what they were filming was not something to be condoned. Well, they were not breaking the law, even though what they were doing can't be condoned. They were arrested anyway, and even charged by the DA's office unless I'm mistaken. So, anyway, this presents us with several issues and topics that very obviously are relevant to and could affect OC. But the thread was closed because in this case the actor was filming something we can't condone. So, because the particular case was distasteful the thread was closed, the thread was not closed due to being off topic or irrelevant to OC. It was very obviously relevant to OC.

    Example Issues:
    1. Should the right to film in public be protected even when what's being filmed is considered distasteful, even immoral? Before answering consider that many find it distasteful to film the police - including many police.
    2. As was the case in the unspeakable case, the police made a clearly unlawful arrest as a result of finding the filming distasteful, not because the filming was unlawful (not unlike the previous thread being closed due to containing a distasteful case instead of violating any forum rules, funny that coincidence).
    3. Is it wrong to protect the right to film without exception when some abuse that right to do distasteful or even immoral things? What can we do about the distasteful or immoral things without becoming hypocrites or compromising principle?
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Having missed the now-deleted thread I am ignorant of the specifics, but I have a strong suspicion it may have involved some in-you-face provocations designed to create "gotcha" moments for the camera. Especially since TPTB and I both run digital voice recorders, and advocate for others to do the same, from the time we leave our homes till we returm home.

    I'd appreciate finding out if that was the case or if not just what was the issue/specifics that made TPTB delete it. Send me a PM if you fear reprisal by TPTB for merely mentioning it here.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Having missed the now-deleted thread I am ignorant of the specifics, but I have a strong suspicion it may have involved some in-you-face provocations designed to create "gotcha" moments for the camera. Especially since TPTB and I both run digital voice recorders, and advocate for others to do the same, from the time we leave our homes till we returm home.

    I'd appreciate finding out if that was the case or if not just what was the issue/specifics that made TPTB delete it. Send me a PM if you fear reprisal by TPTB for merely mentioning it here.

    stay safe.
    Sending PM
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Basically there was a case of someone filming in public, but what they were filming was not something to be condoned. Well, they were not breaking the law, even though what they were doing can't be condoned. They were arrested anyway, and even charged by the DA's office unless I'm mistaken. So, anyway, this presents us with several issues and topics that very obviously are relevant to and could affect OC. But the thread was closed because in this case the actor was filming something we can't condone. So, because the particular case was distasteful the thread was closed, the thread was not closed due to being off topic or irrelevant to OC. It was very obviously relevant to OC.

    Example Issues:
    1. Should the right to film in public be protected even when what's being filmed is considered distasteful, even immoral? Before answering consider that many find it distasteful to film the police - including many police.
    2. As was the case in the unspeakable case, the police made a clearly unlawful arrest as a result of finding the filming distasteful, not because the filming was unlawful (not unlike the previous thread being closed due to containing a distasteful case instead of violating any forum rules, funny that coincidence).
    3. Is it wrong to protect the right to film without exception when some abuse that right to do distasteful or even immoral things? What can we do about the distasteful or immoral things without becoming hypocrites or compromising principle?
    If the filming is taking place in public, then I don't see why there is an issue. If the people doing the acts in public, then I can't see how they would expect any privacy from gawkers or filmers, etc, etc, etc

    LEO's should not expect any privacy while doing their duties.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Read the PM and do know of the case.

    Agree with TPTB that it has not one darned thing to do with OC or even with audio or video recording the police while they are in the performance of their public duties. What does or does not happen to the arresting officer has no place in OCDO.

    I do consider the prosecutor to be a hero for standing up in the face of moral outrage and declaring (and then explaining why) no law was violated.

    And with that I'm pretty sure this matter has been thoroughly discussed and can be allowed to die a peaceful death.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I've changed my mind -- somewhat.

    This discussion might be able to go forward in a productive manner (fat chance that will happen, seeing who's trying to drive it) IF it were focused on the sorts of people who take moral umbrage at someone doing something that is not illegal, and try to make that thing illegal when that involves an enumerated right regardless of how infringed that right may be.

    In other words, if the Mommies and Bloomberg and the rest of the anti-rights folks are not howling for any of several heads to be put up on pikes, and for emergency legislation to close the loophole that has been exposed as existing, then we could talk about the hypocrisy.

    But after stating that hypocrisy exists I wonder what anybody would suggest doing about it. There's not been a lot of discussion about activism against the antis and I don't see that suddenly happening.

    But if you think you could give it a shot while sticking generally to the way , go ahead.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  12. #12
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Read the PM and do know of the case.

    Agree with TPTB that it has not one darned thing to do with OC or even with audio or video recording the police while they are in the performance of their public duties. What does or does not happen to the arresting officer has no place in OCDO.

    I do consider the prosecutor to be a hero for standing up in the face of moral outrage and declaring (and then explaining why) no law was violated.

    And with that I'm pretty sure this matter has been thoroughly discussed and can be allowed to die a peaceful death.

    stay safe.
    I think I've already explained fairly extensively how relevant the case is. You've responded with little more than 'nu uh'. Moreover even the thread that was closed had discussion that seemed to be focused on aspects of the case that were relevant to OC. Edit: If the issues and topics were so irrelevant to OC it would have been clear from the very beginning of this thread. Instead, the topics presented by me in this thread are very obviously relevant to OC, as evidenced by the replies thus far. These topics are undeniably connected to the case in question. It speaks volumes that you judge the relevancy of the topics and issues not for what they are, but by the case that originally spurred the conversation in a previous thread. It's as if you wish to pretend we can place our rights in vacuums so that they aren't connected to anything other than our direct interests in any way. They aren't in a vacuum, and these difficult discussions and problems need to be worked out in order for us to be able to properly and adequately defend our rights as they come under attack from any direction, whether we desire to be engaged in the activity that spurred the attack or not.

    I've given 3 examples of issues that relate greatly to both the case in question and many OC scenarios. I probably gave you more in PM

    Moreover, regardless of whether or not that thread should have been closed, this is a different thread which has been created to discuss topics that are obviously relevant to OC as is obviously understood given the replies thus far. I'm not really sure why you are getting hung up on the other thread. Why not just discuss the issues that are laid out in this thread, in this thread, and not worry so much about the other thread?
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 02-08-2015 at 08:17 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I think I've already explained fairly extensively how relevant the case is. You've responded with little more than 'nu uh'. Moreover even the thread that was closed had discussion that seemed to be focused on aspects of the case that were relevant to OC. Edit: If the issues and topics were so irrelevant to OC it would have been clear from the very beginning of this thread. Instead, the topics presented by me in this thread are very obviously relevant to OC, as evidenced by the replies thus far. These topics are undeniably connected to the case in question. It speaks volumes that you judge the relevancy of the topics and issues not for what they are, but by the case that originally spurred the conversation in a previous thread. It's as if you wish to pretend we can place our rights in vacuums so that they aren't connected to anything other than our direct interests in any way. They aren't in a vacuum, and these difficult discussions and problems need to be worked out in order for us to be able to properly and adequately defend our rights as they come under attack from any direction, whether we desire to be engaged in the activity that spurred the attack or not.

    I've given 3 examples of issues that relate greatly to both the case in question and many OC scenarios. I probably gave you more in PM

    Moreover, regardless of whether or not that thread should have been closed, this is a different thread which has been created to discuss topics that are obviously relevant to OC as is obviously understood given the replies thus far. I'm not really sure why you are getting hung up on the other thread. Why not just discuss the issues that are laid out in this thread, in this thread, and not worry so much about the other thread?
    So bring up a case of a cop "attempting to prevent and stop public from filming or photographing them during detentions or arrests of open carriers" and start a discussion. Just please don't limit the discussion to "That was bad."

    I've got a better idea - bring up a case of a cop "attempting to prevent and stop public from filming or photographing them during detentions or arrests of open carriers" and start discussing ways that such behavior can be ended - without having to resort to individual lawsuits each and every time. Discuss why, even after the CLEO publically states that being photographed/videoed/audio recorded in public is legal and his troops should accept that and just do their jobs without harassing thre citizenry, cops continue to do that sort of asshattery. If you were going to write a law (after all, "there ought to be a law against that", no?) what would it look like.

    More to the point and on topic for you?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    So bring up a case of a cop "attempting to prevent and stop public from filming or photographing them during detentions or arrests of open carriers" and start a discussion. Just please don't limit the discussion to "That was bad."

    I've got a better idea - bring up a case of a cop "attempting to prevent and stop public from filming or photographing them during detentions or arrests of open carriers" and start discussing ways that such behavior can be ended - without having to resort to individual lawsuits each and every time. Discuss why, even after the CLEO publically states that being photographed/videoed/audio recorded in public is legal and his troops should accept that and just do their jobs without harassing thre citizenry, cops continue to do that sort of asshattery. If you were going to write a law (after all, "there ought to be a law against that", no?) what would it look like.

    More to the point and on topic for you?

    stay safe.
    We don't need a specific case to talk about those issues. You just brought those topics up and they are perfectly on-topic (actually, that's pretty much what the topic of this thread already was!). We don't need to wait for a specific case to start problem solving.

    Re: "Law against that" (assuming we're talking about harassing citizens for filming) Does there need to be? Is there not already?
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    We don't need a specific case to talk about those issues. You just brought those topics up and they are perfectly on-topic (actually, that's pretty much what the topic of this thread already was!). We don't need to wait for a specific case to start problem solving.

    Re: "Law against that" (assuming we're talking about harassing citizens for filming) Does there need to be? Is there not already?
    How can we go forward without a specific case? It's the dynamics of the specific case that will drive the development of a solution, not just sitting at your keyboard and typing "That's a bad thing, Dude?"

    I'm not saying that there absolutely must be a law against such behavior, but the existing laws (federal especially) only serve to give the aggrieved the right to sue for compensation as redress. All too often comments are made about cops getting their wrist slapped or a paid vacation with nothing really changing. Write a law against such behavior and then enforce it ( - what a novel concept!). Pour encourager les autres if nothing else.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    How can we go forward without a specific case? It's the dynamics of the specific case that will drive the development of a solution, not just sitting at your keyboard and typing "That's a bad thing, Dude?"

    I'm not saying that there absolutely must be a law against such behavior, but the existing laws (federal especially) only serve to give the aggrieved the right to sue for compensation as redress. All too often comments are made about cops getting their wrist slapped or a paid vacation with nothing really changing. Write a law against such behavior and then enforce it ( - what a novel concept!). Pour encourager les autres if nothing else.

    stay safe.
    We are already going forward without a specific case. I don't think it's good practice to problem-solve without consideration of circumstances outside of a specific case. I'm not saying that having specific cases to consider is bad, I'm just saying that I don't think that not being able to discuss a specific case because the powers to be say so is reason to abandon the discussion as a whole.

    Re writing law to fix unlawful harassment/detainment/arrest issues: I'm saying that I believe there are, arguably, already laws* that could apply but they are not enforced, at least not in these sort of cases (police harassing/detaining/arresting citizens for filming). Assuming that outlawing the behavior is the desired path, you have (at least) two forks now, considering applicable laws* already exist but are not enforced. You can modify the law in attempt to cause it to be enforced in the future, or you can do ... what, to try and get the current law applied in situations of harassment/detainment/arrest? Pressure the PA's office? Campaign against the PA? Note that in other cases of the law even being egregiously violated by LEOs, sometimes they aren't prosecuted. In what way could the law be changed that would lead to a PA prosecuting a LEO for an act that was already illegal but previously not prosecuted? And what can be done to cause a PA to prosecute an officer for violations of the law without modifying the law? I honestly don't know, and I'm genuinely asking for discussion on the topic. But that is only one aspect of this discussion.

    The other is, how do we defend/advocate an uncompromising stance on an activity which is used to do something that is immoral and even detested by the majority of the population? For instance, do we need to more clearly define the activity (aka "the right") in a way that excludes the immoral behavior? Such would open up the possibility of legal prohibition of the immoral activity without compromising "the right." Do we need to offer practical solutions to prevent the use of the activity for immoral purposes, while avoiding legislation that would outright prohibit the activity when used for immoral purpose? I honestly do wonder if we should "redefine" "the right" in a way that excludes the immoral behavior or if we should simply take the position that not all immoral behavior should be prohibited by law, and present the argument that some immoral behavior must be combated using other practical solutions other than pure use of force. I'd love to hear what someone else thinks about this. It is basically an instance of the classic "should everything that is 'wrong' be 'illegal' and if not then how do we decide which of the former should be the latter" in the filming/recording from a public place context.

    *For instance, Texas unlawful restraint law makes no blanket exception for law enforcement, defining in the law enforcement exception that the restraint must be "for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested." In my opinion this would apply to LEO harassing citizen for filming by detaining them...
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...E.20.htm#20.02
    Advocate freedom please

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,155
    Re, absent punctuation to indicate that it is used as an abbreviation, means 'matter' in Latin and is so used commonly in the phrase In re, meaning in-the-matter-of or in-regard-to. Re: (with the punctuation) alone is in-reply-to.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Re, absent punctuation to indicate that it is used as an abbreviation, means 'matter' in Latin and is so used commonly in the phrase In re, meaning in-the-matter-of or in-regard-to. Re: (with the punctuation) alone is in-reply-to.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re
    And that, child, is why they used to teach reading in context.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    See attached.

    Basically what we have here is a topic that actually IS PERFECTLY relevant to open carry, but the powers to be had a distaste for this particular case and used an illegitimate excuse to close the thread instead of just telling the truth which would have been "I don't like this case being discussed here"

    So, here's a thread where we can have the exact same discussion without referencing that case that the powers to be would rather sweep under the rug.
    The thread has been totally deleted ! LOL

    Point I was going to make was that some people would think that OCing is more offensive than the subject matter of that thread.

    And that these types of cases make bad case law (and bad decisions by forum moderators too). Yet these type of cases test the resolve of gov't officials to agree to follow the law, even when its offensive to their senses and how they example that they have no resolve at all. That gov't officials make up laws out of thin air just because they find the actions of a citizen offensive to their own "rules"; just like gov't officials treatment of OCers.

    Grape said has noting to do with OC but I think examining the case has great relevance to OCing. Yet I'm not a moderator.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    --snipped--
    Grape said has noting(sic) to do with OC but I think examining the case has great relevance to OCing. Yet I'm not a moderator.
    Address the issue(s) singularly that are relevant to OC and then keep it on topic. Some find it too tempting to stray.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    [...]

    Point I was going to make was that some people would think that OCing is more offensive than the subject matter of that thread.

    And that these types of cases make bad case law (and bad decisions by forum moderators too). Yet these type of cases test the resolve of gov't officials to agree to follow the law, even when its offensive to their senses and how they example that they have no resolve at all. That gov't officials make up laws out of thin air just because they find the actions of a citizen offensive to their own "rules"; just like gov't officials treatment of OCers.

    [...]
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Address the issue(s) singularly that are relevant to OC and then keep it on topic. Some find it too tempting to stray.
    That's my goal - open a thread for discussion of the specific aspects of the other thread which are relevant to OC (which is many, IMO) while avoiding discussion of the specific case that got the other thread closed.
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I agree.



    That's my goal - open a thread for discussion of the specific aspects of the other thread which are relevant to OC (which is many, IMO) while avoiding discussion of the specific case that got the other thread closed.
    What other case? LOL

    We can only discuss cases that don't have any moral offensiveness to them (I guess~but I think that those are the perfect cases to examine things~take it to the extremes to clarify the question).

    Like photography is way more offensive than shooting deaths. huh?
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 02-08-2015 at 08:23 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    A similar case came up in Washington. The judges rulings are to what is public or not. Our state ended up making this type of recording illegal. The dicta in the ruling of the original arrest was very helpful for those of us that may record everything throughout our day.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    A similar case came up in Washington. The judges rulings are to what is public or not. Our state ended up making this type of recording illegal. The dicta in the ruling of the original arrest was very helpful for those of us that may record everything throughout our day.
    I actually thought about this point after posting - that another option, and maybe the best one, is to very simply redefine what's public and private... Sort of defining another boundary line for the expectation of privacy. It's not a place you're in where you can expect privacy, but you go to a reasonable effort to provide a certain degree of privacy even in a public place. What would be interesting is to see law or court ruling made to protect this privacy and then see someone use it to challenge something like TSA body scanners. But that might be getting a little off topic.

    davidmcbeth, I agree with you completely on that... I'm just trying to have the conversation without the mods closing the thread. I don't agree with their "ruling" but I want(ed) to (try) to have the conversation anyway without breaking their "ruling"
    Advocate freedom please

  25. #25
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Is this the upskirt thread version 2.0? If it is its not remotely relevant to OC or any firearms. A sick dude got caught doing something f that should clearly be illegal.

    Problem is the exact wording of the statute was close enough for an arrest but not close enough for conviction so the dude gets away with it.

    Same thing happens in MA. Guy got caught bring a pervert. Law at the time didn't cover his behavior so they passed a new law.

    Everybody complains about "victimless crimes" well this case there's a victim without a piece of paper that makes it a crime.

    Love for one of you boys to say if it was your daughter you'd be ok with it.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •