Police taping you

[RayBurton72]

imported post

A good to way to prevent the "disapearance" of a DVR, is to use a cell phone with a "ear bud" & microphone to a digital home answering machine/voice mailthat has no auto-end feature.

The use of a speed dial button, and the voice mail begins recording.

Yes, it is a PITA, but it has come in VERY handy for me in the past under certain circumstances.

 

[Ajetpilot]

imported post

If LEOs are so crooked that they would steal a recorder orerase the recordings, then I guess there is no reason to invest in and use a recorder. You've convinced me.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

Theseus wrote:

But here in Cali I have been told that if my gun is stolen and I don't have a gun lock on it I am partially liable for what the criminal does with the gun.

Only because it wasn't locked...

A little off topic, but...thouht it was relevant.

"Hello, officer? Yes, my gun was stolen. Yes, it was a ______, serial number XXXXXX with a black trigger lock on it." Every time. Who the hell would say it didn't have a trigger lock on it??

RayBurton72 wrote: [/b]

A good to way to prevent the "disapearance" of a DVR, is to use a cell phone with a "ear bud" & microphone to a digital home answering machine/voice mailthat has no auto-end feature.

The use of a speed dial button, and the voice mail begins recording.

Yes, it is a PITA, but it has come in VERY handy for me in the past under certain circumstances.

What's that Porcupine 411 system? Is it for NH only?

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

SlackwareRobert wrote:

...... when I went to file the complaint, chief was irate when he saw it, saying you can't record without his consent.  Law says otherwise.....  

Bingo!  We have a winner!  The first words out of the chief's mouth are the same opinion some officers have.  Therefore, there's a darn good possibility of hearing "what recorder?  He didn't have a recorder when I arrested him!"

Ya see, it's OK for the police to record you.  And it's OK for them to deny a recording even exists if it's in their best interest to do so.  But recording them without their knowledge is often looked upon as "contemt of cop".

We had a local rookie who obtained a stalking warrant for another police officer when the police officer, with cause, whipped up on the rookie in court.  (Yes, cops fight amongst themselves too!)  This rookie had video cameras in the front and rear windsheilds of his patrol car.  But at the actual stalking trial he could not produce 1 second of video to back up his claim that the police officer was stalking him.    We believe in this particular case that the video/audio was intentionally destroyed because it would have actually shown the rookie stalking the police officer.  Interestingly enough, at the same time this rookie was accused of stalking a local prominent business man who beat a traffic charge against him.  If the loss or destruction of police audio/video from a police car can take place, don't ever assume your recording as a citizen will survive whatever encounter.

Under any circumstances though, having a video or audio recording is better than not having one.

What department are you with again?

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

What department are you with again?

None. I totally resigned from law enforcement several years after I watched the entire chain of command at a local county police department commit perjury in court. Even the judge walked to his chambers and remarked to his baliff that he could not believe the entire chain of command had committed perjury in his courtroom. He also left very shortly thereafter, he had gotten to the point he could not trust defendants or the police to tell him the truth.

 

[Gator5713]

imported post

Personally I think that it ought to be (and in some precincts it is policy) required that all police encounters be recorded (audio and video) and the recordings made immediately available to all parties involved. Furthermore, if the recording is 'unavailable' for whatever reason in court then the entire encounter should be 'inadmissable'. I have seen the recordings conveniently 'disappear' tooo many times.

As for the 'personal' recordings.
If you can prove 'standard procedure' to always recording then your recording being conveniently not available after detainment should follow the same guideline...
If you can prove a pattern, then an anomaly in said pattern is cause for further investigation...

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

Personally I think that it ought to be (and in some precincts it is policy) required that all police encounters be recorded (audio and video) and the recordings made immediately available to all parties involved.

Good idea.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

....required that all police encounters be recorded (audio and video) and the recordings made immediately available to all parties involved.

I've always felt ice water in hell was an excellent idea. But we'll never see it.

Every day video and audio that is detrimental to a police defense is destroyed somewhere across this nation. I myself had to sit by and watch as 5 hours of 911 audio tape under subpoena was "accidentally destroyed" once the subpoena was served on the director of a 911 center. "Hello, where are the audio tapes we requested?", "Ohh, I am working on them right now, they will be ready by Friday at the latest!", "Hello, it's Monday, where are the audio tapes?", "Ohh, we acidentally destroyed them last week, sorry!", "You sorry MotherF.....!!!!!"

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

SlackwareRobert wrote:

...... when I went to file the complaint, chief was irate when he saw it, saying you can't record without his consent.  Law says otherwise.....  

Bingo!  We have a winner!  The first words out of the chief's mouth are the same opinion some officers have.  Therefore, there's a darn good possibility of hearing "what recorder?  He didn't have a recorder when I arrested him!"

Ya see, it's OK for the police to record you.  And it's OK for them to deny a recording even exists if it's in their best interest to do so.  But recording them without their knowledge is often looked upon as "contemt of cop".

We had a local rookie who obtained a stalking warrant for another police officer when the police officer, with cause, whipped up on the rookie in court.  (Yes, cops fight amongst themselves too!)  This rookie had video cameras in the front and rear windsheilds of his patrol car.  But at the actual stalking trial he could not produce 1 second of video to back up his claim that the police officer was stalking him.    We believe in this particular case that the video/audio was intentionally destroyed because it would have actually shown the rookie stalking the police officer.  Interestingly enough, at the same time this rookie was accused of stalking a local prominent business man who beat a traffic charge against him.  If the loss or destruction of police audio/video from a police car can take place, don't ever assume your recording as a citizen will survive whatever encounter.

Under any circumstances though, having a video or audio recording is better than not having one.

What department was this in again? The same one that all your other stories are from? You must have been in the worst department in the US, then why did you stay for 27 years?

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Gator5713 wrote:

.... required that all police encounters be recorded (audio and video) and the recordings made immediately available to all parties involved. 

I've always felt ice water in hell was an excellent idea.  But we'll never see it.

Every day video and audio that is detrimental to a police defense is destroyed somewhere across this nation.  I myself had to sit by and watch as 5 hours of 911 audio tape under subpoena was "accidentally destroyed" once the subpoena was served on the director of a 911 center.   "Hello, where are the audio tapes we requested?", "Ohh, I am working on them right now, they will be ready by Friday at the latest!",  "Hello, it's Monday, where are the audio tapes?",  "Ohh, we acidentally destroyed them last week, sorry!",  "You sorry Mother F.....!!!!!"   

 

You sure have "seen" a lot of obviously shady "police" abuse and lies. Why did you sit by while all these years or abuse and lies were happening?

 

[sraacke]

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

yale wrote:

Darrow was stopped and harrased at a DWI check point. The media got his tape and story which can be read here. ->

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1522.asp

Another time he was harrassed while waiting for a friend in a commuter parking lot. The copthreatened Darrow and was suspended without pay after the video came out.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

Next we find out that a online forum for cops has posts clearly threating to harm and even kill Mr Darrow.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

Finally the cops start parking down the street from Darrows home, staking out his house and trying to intimidate him.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1967.asp

You're not paraniod if they really are out to get you. :uhoh:

Wow, that cop is the definition of douche bag.

I just realized that the third and forth links I posted are duplicates. The fourth link should be http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1988.asp. That's the one with the story about him being stalked. I will also change this in my post above.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

yale wrote:

Another time he was harrassed while waiting for a friend in a commuter parking lot. The copthreatened Darrow and was suspended without pay after the video came out.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

This video is now shown to the rookies at some police academies.

It should be required viewing at EVERY police academy in the nation.

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

yale wrote:

Another time he was harrassed while waiting for a friend in a commuter parking lot. The cop threatened Darrow and was suspended without pay after the video came out. 

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/19/1961.asp

This video is now shown to the rookies at some police academies.

It should be required viewing at EVERY police academy in the nation.

We finally agree on something. That officer was WAY out of line.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

We finally agree on something. That officer was WAY out of line.(and from the other day nitrovic said...) I don't post on officer.com any longer either.

Yeah, I don't see how anybody could think otherwise when the cop says he will fabricate false charges just to throw a young kid in jail. Not to mention, on a much smaller scale, the cop lied right on video about the young kid using his turn signals and was going to charge him for that too. While the cop said these things and gocaught on video, how many don't get caught on video? :shock:

As far as officer.com -- the same is true of Real Police, Law Enforcement Forums, etc.... Don't ever assume their so called "law enforcement verification process" keeps non-sworn members out of theirforums. Trust me, there is NO foolproof verification process. :lol: