Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Miami Shooting Incident

  1. #1
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252

    Miami Shooting Incident

    Just seeing if there was an update with the investigation that Miami police officers attempted or did attempt to destroy video evidence from cell phones when the shooting occurred, which I believe was around May 30th. I remember seeing the news and one of the witnesses that filmed the shooting had his phone damaged by a bike officer in order to make sure that the video was destroyed. The witness was even put in cuffs because the police "thought" he was a suspect. I guess he wasn't the only one that had this happen too. Thanks for any info.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ellicott City, Maryland, USA
    Posts
    18

    recording the police

    I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by I hate MD View Post
    I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.
    Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Jojo712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.
    Illegal? Not in this case. This was a public incident, on public streets, of a very public event. Two of these killings occurred on the same night, and both had video recordings. Both recordings are legal not merely because they were public, but because the recordation of such a newsworthy event (these were massacres: they drew down all around these folks and emptied clip after clip) would protect its recorder under the First Amendment's own freedom of the press: no press pass needed; no credentials. It's a beautiful new world where news can happen at any moment and cameras are always a plus.

    J4l would be absolutely correct in a police precinct or any spot where the LEOs have an "expectation of privacy," but I think of it this way: if it's a
    Legal video, it's evidence; if it's an illegal video, it's leverage. If your vid is any good, your YouTube hits will go through the roof and your sponsors will go from the local curtain shop to the old spice guy on the horse: you'll put your kids through college (put the cash in a trust so it can't be touched by the LEOs you recorded, just your kid and other trust beneficiaries). Best advice: record, illegal or not.
    Last edited by Jojo712; 06-19-2011 at 02:59 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Jojo712 View Post
    .....Best advice: record, illegal or not.
    UMMMM FORUM RULE 15 Please.

    •(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jojo712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    UMMMM FORUM RULE 15 Please.

    •(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.
    Let's allow the courts to decide what's against the law, not our forum rules. I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, and (hypothetically speaking but God forbid), if I were in any of the following situations, I would shoot first (gun or camera) and face the law later, without at any turn feeling that I "disobeyed the law":

    1. I'm at a restaurant and I walk into the bar section for an instant to say hello to an old friend. Her jealous boyfriend stumbles in and starts shooting at her and me with his .380 bodyguard (fortunately he can't hit the broadside of a barn with that 700 pound trigger, but he keeps coming and shooting). I draw my concealed .45 and aim center-mast. She's now alive -- and newly-single. I'm alive, but in violation of my CCW because I happened to take the extra steps into a bar. We do advocate for "law-abiding only," but let a jury decide whether my actions were justified. I guarantee that in a case like this I'll get my license back, and a very nice acquittal (or even a no-action).

    2. I'm on a public street and I see a Rodney King going down. I pull my weapon (in this case an iPhone) and start "shooting."

    3. If I were teaching a college class and someone were to come in and try to pull a college massacre, I'd be glad I was concealed and protected, even if it were against current statutes.

    See, I think that "law-abiding only" undertakes the entire legal system, and not simply the statute, ordinance (we have pre-emption now), or otherwise. The entire legal system involves a right to have all your evidence preserved rather than destroyed, a right to due process in both the procedural (where often your presumptively illegal act becomes legal by a virtue of a LEOs misconduct) and substantive senses of the term, a right to a fair and impartial jury of your peers, a right to counsel, and a right to trial. Until every legal avenue is exhausted, whatever I may advocate is "law-abiding" only: even something that may initially seem illegal may be law-abiding because of a LEOs mis-step.

    The truth is, most of the time we don't know what's legal or illegal until it has been ventilated in the courts. In this sense, I follow forum rule 15 religiously and with vigor. Rule 15 rules.
    Last edited by Jojo712; 06-19-2011 at 01:42 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by I hate MD View Post
    I tough it was against the law too record the police in florida, while he's in the middle of busting someone cell phone up.
    Everyone agrees, except J4l, that in Florida in a public space, it is NOT illegal to record.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Not this steaming load of lies again....

    The wiretapping law only applies in circumstances where the non-recording party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Read the definitions earlier in the statute. Yes, you can record the Police in Florida. Those who say otherwise are taking it out of the context of the statute's definition.

    There is a pending case which deals with recording a public official in a place where they DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of recording in places where such expectation of privacy does not exist. This is very settled case law. Prosecutors won't even charge these cases anymore. There is no Qualified Immunity for Cops who violate it. Period. End of discussion. I'm not putting a disclaimer on it; it's a fact.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    ?
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by j4l View Post
    Without the officer's consent, private or otherwise, any recording would have been illegal anyway.
    And I'm taking my unicorn out for a little ride tomorrow. Hell, I might bring my talking too!
    Last edited by KeepShootin; 06-23-2011 at 02:18 AM.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Jojo712's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    201
    Quote Originally Posted by ixtow View Post
    Not this steaming load of lies again....

    The wiretapping law only applies in circumstances where the non-recording party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Read the definitions earlier in the statute. Yes, you can record the Police in Florida. Those who say otherwise are taking it out of the context of the statute's definition.

    There is a pending case which deals with recording a public official in a place where they DO have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of recording in places where such expectation of privacy does not exist. This is very settled case law. Prosecutors won't even charge these cases anymore. There is no Qualified Immunity for Cops who violate it. Period. End of discussion. I'm not putting a disclaimer on it; it's a fact.
    Agreed, but an expectation of privacy is a wholly contentious concept that can be argued in court, rather than dealt with by seizing or destroying the evidence that does not rightfully belong to them:

    Shakespeare knew it before we did: "Oh, Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts, and Men have lost their Reason."

    Merely the fact that the officers may think that they have an expectation of privacy in their "persons, papers, or affairs" doesn't mean $#!+ when contrasted against the first amendment principle that the people have a right to know if there's something rotten, and the press has a right to tell them. The officers' arguments for privacy pale by comparison when they go out and commit some type of atrocity that makes them, for all intents and purposes, public figures subject to public scrutiny.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Jojo712 View Post
    Merely the fact that the officers may think that they have an expectation of privacy in their "persons, papers, or affairs" doesn't mean $#!+ when contrasted against the first amendment principle that the people have a right to know if there's something rotten, and the press has a right to tell them. The officers' arguments for privacy pale by comparison when they go out and commit some type of atrocity that makes them, for all intents and purposes, public figures subject to public scrutiny.
    I agree, but the case which will seal that deal is still pending. What you and I agree on has nothing to do with the contortions the Government will go through to maintain it's unjustly seized powers.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

Posting Permissions

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