• 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.

Videotaping a T-stop and open carrying

BaconMan

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
61
Location
Los Angeles
I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....:question:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....:question:

I don't understand why officers would have a problem with that as long as she didn't interfere with their legal actions.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
I think I've read that thread, too.
IIRC she was out walking her dog & happened to be going past the officers.
And IIRC (2) she was carrying? (someone correct me)
Maybe she saw something that needed documenting, maybe she was being proactive.
But it shouldn't matter - as long as she's not interfering, the officers had no business saying or doing anything to her.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....:question:


How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety" than someone driving a car on the street beside the scene, or someone NOT carrying, but walking a large dog beside the scene, or someone sitting on their porch half a mile away, cleaning their scoped .308 deer rifle, or someone walking across their yard next to the stop with a can of gasoline for their lawnmower and a Zippo in their pocket, or someone flying a model airplane 100 feet above the scene?

You must remember that through Federally-funded and mandated training programs, local LEAs are being indoctrinated to believe that EVERY citizen is a clear and present danger to "officer safety", and it is completely acceptable (and in fact, Federally Mandated) behavior for LEOs to treat EVERY person they encounter--even incidental contact--with an elevated level of suspicion, an overwhelming level of verbal and attitudinal force, and if they offer any resistance, or insist on being treated like human beings with "rights", they are to be immediately put in the same category as a terrorist in the officer's mind.

So videotaping an LEO is, under the training they are receiving, a sort of terroristic activity.

That is what our nation is coming to--federalized LE from top to bottom; unmitigated suspicion of ALL people who don't wear a badge. hold "elected office", or have diplomatic plates; and an absolute disdain for the very idea that "mere citizens" actually have "rights"...
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Aside from making sure their hair is combed and uniforms are on straight, exactly what "addressing the situation" should the cops be doing?

Are they somehow being placed in danger? Are their souls going to be captured by the 'magic box' or something?

Help me out here, I'm curious.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
As the bearing of arms is both legal and protected, exactly how is carrying a firearm any different than carrying a cellphone, a radio, or for that matter a hot ham'n'cheese sandwich?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety"...

Than another officer? That is the question.

You must remember that through Federally-funded and mandated training programs, local LEAs are being indoctrinated to believe that EVERY citizen is a clear and present danger to "officer safety", and it is completely acceptable (and in fact, Federally Mandated) behavior for LEOs to treat EVERY person they encounter--even incidental contact--with an elevated level of suspicion, an overwhelming level of verbal and attitudinal force, and if they offer any resistance, or insist on being treated like human beings with "rights", they are to be immediately put in the same category as a terrorist in the officer's mind.

And the interesting thing about this 'indoctrination' is that I have yet to read any information on such perceptions of the general public reducing the safety of the officer.

I give much thought to the question of 'officer safety', and what seems to be a pervasive attitude that if the officers treat all civilians as though they are a threat, that it will somehow make the officer 'safer'.

What we do know that it does is make a rift between the LEO's of our community, and the law abiding citizens. Now that sounds dangerous.
[snip]
That is what our nation is coming to--federalized LE from top to bottom; unmitigated suspicion of ALL people who don't wear a badge. hold "elected office", or have diplomatic plates; and an absolute disdain for the very idea that "mere citizens" actually have "rights"...

Naturally, I would argue that they do not have disdain for the "mere citizen." They do have a perception issue that can easily be removed as it has been imposed. Policy plays a big role in issues like this.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.

ImpliedFacepalm.png
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.

Um, your comment is more deserving of "facepalm" than that which you responded to.

LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them? They are public employees, performing functions in the public eye.
 

CharleyCherokee

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
293
Location
WesternKy
You should youtube copwatch sometime. Considering the power LEOs have these days it's a common sense approach to try and keep them in check. They are NOT elected officials to be voted out after all.
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
Um, your comment is more deserving of "facepalm" than that which you responded to.

LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them? They are public employees, performing functions in the public eye.





LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them?

Ill give you some time to contemplate that one..you answered your own question.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
LE even video themselves. Why NOT video them?

Ill give you some time to contemplate that one..you answered your own question.

I need no time to contemplate my statement. If you have a viewpoint that you think "answers my own question," please share.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
How does someone legally carrying present any more of a threat to "officer safety" than someone driving a car on the street beside the scene, or someone NOT carrying,

I'll add to that statement with one of my own How does someone "illegally" carrying ( I don't mean the manner of carry) present any more of a danger.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya.

Your opinion on recording and video proves to be wrong every single day. It means absolutely nothing.

Luckily the folks here are prudent. They don't deny the thousands of videos/news stories posted to the internet by every day citizens exposing cops actually exist and are real... We are a nation armed with cameras, recorders, and cell phones. It is part of our culture.

By the way, photography is a 1st Amendment Right. So no one has to justify sh*t to you about what, why, or where they shoot.


Sucks, doesn't it.
2044849074_69d1b8f8b3.jpg
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Im just very very curious..why video someone else's traffic stop in the 1st place? It's nunya. You're not likely to catch the next Rodney King viral vid. Go on about yer biz and walk the dog.Less chance of provoking this kind of incident-right or wrong.

I wonder if the gentleman is aware that the Rodney King incident was only brought to the attention to the public because a passerby by the name of George Holiday did make a home video of something that was "none of his business"? Had the incident not been captured on camera, it is quite likely the conduct of the police would never have come to the public's attention.

Would the gentleman actually prefer that such incidents Not be recorded? Really?
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I wonder if the gentleman is aware that the Rodney King incident was only brought to the attention to the public because a passerby by the name of George Holiday did make a home video of something that was "none of his business"? Had the incident not been captured on camera, it is quite likely the conduct of the police would never have come to the public's attention.

Would the gentleman actually prefer that such incidents Not be recorded? Really?

I wish I could get ahold of a cop of HBO's first shocking video, just when our video culture was emerging. There was lots of evidence on that of police misbehavior. Threatening a kid who climbed a tree to avoid agressive cops threatening him to hand over his camera because he caught them.

A black cop heard rumors of racial profiling, so he had his white friend follow him into (Santa Monica I believe) video taping within minutes was pulled over and thrown through a plate glass window, and I reiterate this guy was a cop, without that video they wouldn't have ever had any justice or proof of what was happening.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I Just saw a video of a Las Vegas lady videotaping a traffic stop (she was not involved with the t-stop in anyway) in her neighborhood and she was open carrying. The officers contacted her, stopped her from videotaping, but she some how turned on her camera (good job on her part) and was detained. I am just curious as to the reasoning why anyone would walk up to a T-stop, unless they know the officer(s), carrying a weapon and not expect the officer(s) to address the situation....:question:

Are you suggesting that the cops would contact a person who was legally and lawfully wearing pants, or legally and lawfully carrying a sandwich, or legally and lawfully chewing bubblegum, just because while that person was legally and lawfully doing any of the above they stopped to videotape a traffic stop they happened to observe? In case you are wondering, I can use any of those listed items quite effectively as a weapon, along with a myriad of other common everyday items - including my legally and lawfully openly carried handgun.

As long as the videotaping of the activities of public employees performing their duties in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy is not otherwise prohibitted by law, I see no need to ask why any person would do so. It would be like me asking you why you choose to breathe in and out while looking at the traffic stop, or why a police officer would not be expected to address the situation if you were observed to be breathing in and out while looking at the traffic stop.

If the activity is lawful and does not interfere with the duties of the police, they should not "address the situation".

It is when the police begin "addressing the situation" of people lawfully doing legal activities that we need to be concerned about how to return to the status quo ante - the way things were beforehand when the police did not interfere with people lawfully going about their day doing things that are not unlawful or illegal. Or are you one of "those" folks who would prefer not to remember the lessons from the past when the police and other government functionaries (not a pergorative term, merely a descriptive one) started down that road.

stay safe.
 
Top