• 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.

Teen arrested for Videotaping Cop

reefteach

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
511
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
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.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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?
 

daniel.call

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
56
Location
, Utah, USA
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.
 

Sitrep

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Here and There, Washington, USA
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.
 

kurtmax_0

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
794
Location
Auburn, Alabama, USA
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.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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/articles/2007/06/21/state_news/state01.txt
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
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:
 
Top