Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Teen arrested for Videotaping Cop

  1. #1
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    So explain whyI don't have to consent to the dashcam recording again.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=56173




    An 18-year-old from Pennsylvania is facing a felony charge after he was caught videotaping a police officer handing out a traffic ticket on a public street.
    "I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Brian D. Kelly told The Patriot-News.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    This seriously, seriously, needs to change. At a minimum, there needs to be an exemptionfor recording gov't agents. And no requirement to alert them to the recording.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    Federal Judge: Videotaping Police Traffic Stops OK
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    ne1 wrote:
    Federal Judge: Videotaping Police Traffic Stops OK
    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/541.asp
    This is what I'm talking about.

    Click on the link to the .pdf of the actual decision. The court did not mince words.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    You'd think that the police chief would be embarassed to try to enforce outright censorship.

    PA law must change. Videotaping or voice recording police is a good idea not a bad one.
    I think LEO229 should give his opinion here, but seems to me he is a bit liberal? I might be very wrong, I dunno.

    But I will say not all police encounters should be taped, I think some of these people need to get beaten into submission, I know that is not what was being taped, but have an ordinary citizen try to handle some of these situations, I give these folks a lot of credit for what they do.


  6. #6
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    An embarassment to freedom.......
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    But I will say not all police encounters should be taped, I think some of these people need to get beaten into submission...
    I don't understand what you mean: that sometimes it's okay for cops to disobey the law, and that instead videotaping this unlawful behaviour, witnesses should just look the other way, maybe even nod and wink as they pass by?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    But I will say not all police encounters should be taped, I think some of these people need to get beaten into submission, I know that is not what was being taped, but have an ordinary citizen try to handle some of these situations, I give these folks a lot of credit for what they do.
    There is one slight problem with this. If police are allowed to beat anyone, they can beat everyone. If people need to be beaten civilians need to step up and get the job done before the cops are called. I am never for state sponsered violence without the due process of law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here and There, Washington, USA
    Posts
    150

    Post imported post

    So, if the law doesn't allow recording an oral converation without permission, shouldn't the man with the camera have just been required to disconect the microphone.

    I think I'll stay away from Pennsylvania. If it is illegal to record cops, I don't think I can trust them.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    Most people that film police get arrested for "intefering with an investigation" or something like that. There are cases of people using camera phones in their front yards filming police arresting somebody on the street, and they get arrested too....

    Also, filming a cop at a traffic stop isn't espionage or whatever. It is not illegal to film anywhere except very few, well defined exceptions. (Trade secrets, which have to be locked in safes or somehow protected from people to be considered trade secrets and certain military installations are about the only two I can think about)

    I simply can't imagine someone loosing a case against cops for getting arrested filming. Hell, it's legal to film stuff while tresspassing... just not legal to tresspass... But anybody in a public place, including cops on roads, can get filmed. Period. The laws are so clear on this it's amazing how people can get confused...

    Of course, for many of the people that get arrested for filming, their film "mysteriously" dissapears.... Although now cameras can be streaming their data over a network to a remote location, so it couldn't get confiscated.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post


  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    Also, filming a cop at a traffic stop isn't espionage or whatever. It is not illegal to film anywhere except very few, well defined exceptions...

    I simply can't imagine someone loosing a case against cops for getting arrested filming.

    I think you are right.

    Here is an interesting development regarding video recording.This might start a trend.Power to the people, right on. :shock:







    ACLU gives St. Louis residents video cameras to monitor police


    Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007


    ST. LOUIS (AP) — After a year of delays, the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in St. Louis is launching a program that will put video cameras in the hands of St. Louis residents so they can monitor police activity in their neighborhoods.

    The ACLU of Eastern Missouri announced the program last year after television crews videotaped police punching and kicking a suspect after a car chase. Three of the officers were from the suburban Maplewood police department and one was from the St. Louis city department.

    The ACLU said Wednesday it has given cameras and training to about 10 residents in north St. Louis, a higher-crime part of the city. The group declined to release the names of those participating in the video monitoring, dubbed Project Vigilant.


    “The idea here is to level the playing field, so it’s not just your word against the police’s word,” said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. The program is not just a reaction to one incident, but years worth of complaints about police misconduct in St. Louis, she said.

    Jones said Project Vigilant is a pilot program the ACLU hopes to expand, enrolling between 50 and 100 members in total. The initial launch has been restrained to a lower-income area that ACLU members said is plagued by police misconduct.

    St. Louis police spokesman Richard Wilkes declined to comment in detail on the ACLU program when asked how it might affect police relations with the community.


    “We don’t have any opinions or feelings about it one way or another,” Wilkes said. “Hopefully it records positive interactions between the police and the community.”

    Former St. Louis Police Department Sgt. K.L. Williams is overseeing the training process for residents who will receive a camera.

    Williams said the training sessions last a few hours. The primary focus of the training is to teach participants how to video tape police activity from a safe distance without interrupting arrests or searches.

    “The citizens are not there to interfere with any police contacts,” Williams said.

    ACLU spokesman Redditt Hudson said the program will also include free workshops to teach residents about their constitutional rights when approached by police.

    Passions were enflamed last year after the violent videotaped arrest of 33-year-old Edmon Burns, which was broadcast on local and national television. The chase began in Maplewood after officers said they noticed a man in a van acting suspiciously. It ended in St. Louis.

    The FBI investigated the incident and handed the case over to the U.S. Department of Justice, which said in May there was insufficient evidence to charge the officers under federal criminal civil rights laws.

    Prosecutors said at the time that their decision was not an exoneration of the officers, but only a determination that there was not enough “available admissible evidence” for a federal criminal civil rights prosecution.

    Jones said organizers of Project Vigilant have used the last year to work closely with St. Louis police officials to make sure they are aware of all the project’s details.

    http://www.therolladailynews.com/art...ws/state01.txt







  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Here is an interesting development regarding video recording.*This might start a trend.*Power to the people, right on. :shock:
    I'm surprised you didn't suggest they all sign waivers before they're allowed to record...
    -Unrequited

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Here is an interesting development regarding video recording.This might start a trend.Power to the people, right on. :shock:
    I'm surprised you didn't suggest they all sign waivers before they're allowed to record...
    Nobody's gonna fall for the waiver trick anymore.

    Are they?:what:

Posting Permissions

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