|
Forum: Internet Links Topic: Man arrested for videotaping cops at his door. started by: GORDON Posted by GORDON on Jun. 29 2006,14:19
< http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 >I AM ABOVE THE LAW! Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,14:30
That's messed up. I don't care if this guy is a piece of crap or not, if that setup is in violation of the law then I don't doubt that every convenience store in the state needs to be investigated.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,15:06
Well, I was wrong:< http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-2.htm > Basically, if you intentionally overhear anything someone else says, whether in person or through pretty much any other methods, then you are committing a crime. Unless this action is taking place in a place of business. If you accidently overhear anything someone says, whether in person of through pretty much any other methods, then to repeat what you have heard to a third party is illegal. If you have a conversation and wish to record it in any way you must have prior consent to do such recordings. So, even if he told them about the camera, he'd have to get their consent BEFORE doing any recording. So presumably such consent has to be in writing, since you can't record them giving the consent since they won't have given it yet. Note also that the "conversation" does not have to be mutually agreed upon; you could be recording yourself and if someone comes up and shouts into your microphone before giving you consent to record it, they just made you a felon. It's interesting that this includes, like, hearing the guy next to you at the bar say something and then turning to your friend and telling him. If you do that, you are a felon. In summary, New Hampshire sucks. Come to Texas, where only one party involved has to be informed of the recording and it's legal. EDIT: Although, he could make a case for the business loophole, if he can derive some revenue from this event. Then the recording was perfectly legit. Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 29 2006,16:58
Live Free or...Somewhere Else.
Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 29 2006,17:21
No wait, that's a place of business, so that's okay. Oops. Pretty much the only place it's illegal to do recordings is in your (or someone else's) home. Huh. So much for freedom in the homestead and all that. Posted by TheCatt on Jun. 30 2006,04:45
Weird.NC is a one-party recording state.q Posted by DoctorChaos on Jun. 30 2006,05:53
Gotta love law enforcement. Sorta like, 'Jesus, I have to file another report. Just make my life easier.' Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2006,10:56
Actually I think the cop was implying something more along the lines of "Millionaries don't live in the ghetto, dumbfuck." Posted by GORDON on Jun. 30 2006,10:58
They do if they want cheap property taxes.The just need to have surveillance systems for protection. Oh, wait.... Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2006,11:01
Yes, because they want to save a few thousand a year in taxes so they can lose several thousand in theft. Not to mention they want to risk bodily harm. Talk to anybody that has lived in the ghetto. The homes look like shit on the outside, but if you go in, it's usually nice. Why? Because they don't advertise they have nice things. A well maintained lawn means good shit to steal inside. Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2006,11:25
And after reading the article, I have to say that Vermont's recording law is bullshit and the Gannons are morons.Anyone who read that should be able to tell exactly what kind of people the Gannons are and why their boy is going to jail. "How many cops does it take to arrest a 15 year old?" Stupid bitch. He did it with other kids, who could be there, plus you and your husband are there. I mean, why does it take more than one fightman to put out a single house that's on fire? As for that law, it sounds like some politicians were giving themselves a loophole in case they or their rich supporters got caught doing something wrong. Posted by thibodeaux on Jun. 30 2006,11:48
I think it's New Hampshire, but yes the law is complete BS.
Posted by Leisher on Jun. 30 2006,12:38
Vermont. New Hampshire. Same thing. And I'm serious about that law being created to cover someone's ass. Total crap. I mean if someone filmed the bedroom and it got robbed, the video wouldn't be allowed in court to convict the guy and that is absolute bullshit. Posted by Vince on Jun. 30 2006,15:40
What if you filmed it without audio? Posted by TPRJones on Jun. 30 2006,15:58
Then it would be legal. It's just audio that is outlawed. Although a very good lawyer could maybe sell an arguement that you could read their lips on the video if they talked towards the camera.When I bought my wireless camera off of eBay I discovered that eBay doesn't allow for the sale of small wireless hidden cameras if the auction states that the camera also does audio, but it's fine if it doesn't. When I got my camera I discovered it does audio, and there was no mention of that at all in the ad so it was a pleasent surprise. Anyway, I bet this law (and others like it) are why eBay has that rule in place. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2006,10:23
< Men arested for videotaping cops on a public street. >The hint I'm getting is that cops don't like being videotaped. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2006,10:27
The hell you say. Although, it's fun to have cops getting pissed off for shit they routinely do to people w\ their dashboard cams. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 11 2006,10:56
There are a LOT of details left out of that story. My first question about the article is why were cops arresting people leaving bars? That's illegal. It's entrapment. At least it is here. They can be down the street, but they can't legally watch a bar and grab people who leave it. (At least that's the way I've always understood it.) In fact, while visiting, working at, and driving by bars for years I've never seen any cop ever staked out near a bar HERE. I've seen them go to bars to break up fights and such, but the only DUI arrest I've ever seen take place at or near a bar was in the parking lot of the place I worked. It was 3:30 in the morning, an hour after the place closed. I forget why the cops came in the parking lot, but it was totally unrelated, I think they were called for something. Anyway, some guy passed out in his car after he started it. If I remember, he even had it in drive, but the parking brake was on or something like that. Anyway, I'd also like to know exactly what the cops were doing undercover. The liquor control act isn't about just busting some drunks. Believe me when I say cops have better things to do and would prefer doing that stuff than doing boring busts on a couple of drunks. If they were busting drunks, there would be no purpose for the three cops to be undercover unless they were there for something other than busting drunks OR they were breaking the law themselves, which wouldn't make a lot of sense since there's no money, power, or promotion to be gained in busting drunks. And why is it against the law for these guys to be filming? Does New Mexico have some freak laws that I didn't know about when I lived there? Now them interferring in the bust/sting/arrests IS a crime. So that I understand. Odd. Odd. Odd. We need more details. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2006,11:36
I hear about cops staking out bars all the time.In fact, there are frequent "registration/safety" checks on one of the two bridges coming off an island near here. At 2am, when the bars close. The other bridge is about 15 miles on the other side of the island from where the bars are. But hey, safety first, I always say. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2006,11:50
Fuck, I used to know a cop that did just that. Fortunately, he wasn't a cop 'round where I hung.
Posted by Leisher on Jul. 11 2006,12:49
Yeah, I hear "expert" testimony all the time too like: "I wasn't doing anything and this cop just arrests me!!!" Blah, blah, blah. As I told WSGrundy about sports, most people don't know the rules yet they bitch about them despite having no idea what they're talking about. Ditto for laws. Nobody tells a story that paints them as the bad guy. Being in IT I hear the same shit. "I swear I didn't do anything!" "No, I've never been on a porn site." Not saying cops are always right, but you'd have to be pretty fucking naive to think someone is going to tell you all the facts about them getting arrested. Hell, if you ask them, you'll find that the vast majority of people in prison are innocent. I remember a friend talking about how he got arrested for just walking down the street drunk. For years he stuck to that story until finally the truth came out that he actually was walking down the street, but what got him arrested was the fact that he was bombed and pissing on the side of the road. The cop gave him a drunk in public ticket and not a public exposure or urination as well. JUST got a call from a cop, here's what I learned: -It is not illegal for a cop to sit in a parking lot of a bar and bust drunks as they get in their car, however (I'm sure I lost some of you haters right there...I feel like I might as well be discussing the merits of Republican politics at the DCU...or discussing the MSM's honest coverage of Iraq HERE) the arrest will not stand up in court because the cop had no probable cause. A cop must observe you crossing lines, forgetting to turn on your lights, swerving, etc. before he pulls you over. Remember those dashboard cameras that you think cops love to have in their cars? That's what those are used for; to get proof of the drunk's swerving and such. -That also means the roadblocks at the bridges can't get drunks on probable cause (IE: Following them and witnessing the crime) but instead having them come right to the cops. Look in the newspaper, you should see all roadblocks listed as to when and where they're occuring. Hell, I've heard them announced on the radio here. How much fucking easier can cops make it to avoid them? -As for the San Diego thing, the men probably weren't cops, it's more likely they were liquor control agents. Their job is to bust BARS for the illegal sale of alcohol, not bust drunks. That's what the liquor control act is all about. They are undercover in bars and when they see underage people or people who are obviously drunk getting served they can make arrests and issues tickets. -Not sure what the deal was with the camera shit, but the obstruction charge is easy. If the cop told them to disperse and they didn't, they could be arrested. Now you have to ask yourself, since the article was written based on facts from the guys who got arrested, do you think you're getting the whole story of what they were doing? Did they really film from the street or did they move in really close to the cops and the people they were arresting making the situation more dangerous for the cops and the people they were arresting?
You are correct about this though. Fucking nazi pigs fucking with drunks. It's not like drunk drivers hurt anyone...
Then he sucked. See above. You should have found out what his conviction rate was like for that tactic. Or is it possible he meant he parked away from the building and would follow people until they proved they were drunk or sober. Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 11 2006,13:19
Much of what you say depends on the jurisdiction, too. Different places, different laws, and different legal precidents.IMO, about 1/3rd of cops are trying to do the right thing and enforce the law and serve the public, about 1/3rd have had their soul crushed and are just doing what it takes to get their paychecks, and 1/3 are total fuckers that are worse than many of the criminals they face. That's all just my own personal experience, though. Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 11 2006,13:46
My wife never understands why I'm so surprised when I see a cop doing the "right thing" or something nice.
Posted by GORDON on Jul. 11 2006,14:10
I notice you didn't comment in this thread about cops going into a hotel bar and arresting peeps in it for public intoxication. < http://www.dtman.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=4931 > edit: I notice the article linked in that other thread used to be about the police action itself... and now it is about a bar that supports the program. Yeah, right. Posted by thibodeaux on Jul. 11 2006,14:46
This is what I don't like. So if a cop tells us to jump, we have to say "how high, sir?" Screw that. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2006,15:38
Dunno what the conviction rate was. He did not park away from the bar. He sat right outside the goddamned parking lot. I swear to Christ almighty, he cited people for what he referred to as "excessive acceleration." How am I so sure of this? I've actually seen him first-hand do this shit. I don't mean "first-hand" coming out of the bar. I mean "first-hand" like I was in the fucking car w\ him. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 11 2006,22:05
I never saw that thread, which you have to admit makes it difficult to comment on. Although, I could easily point the "you skipped over some items" finger right back at you in this debate. 've seen that thread now and I think it's bullshit. No fucking way should the cops in Texas be pulling shit like that. That's like arresting someone who buys a crowbar because they might use it in a crime someday. Of course, that's Texas, not San Diego. Thus, I'm not sure why you're trying to get up in my face about it. I already pointed out that laws differ from place to place. How does an abuse of the law in Texas apply to something that occured in San Diego? Show me your proof that the same type of program is going on in San Diego and I'll condemn it too, but that doesn't mean the guys with the video camera are off the hook because we have no details on exactly what they did, just their lawyer saying they're innocent.
Thib, if you got into a scuffle with a random drunk at a bar and someone else came up behind you talking about how you were in the wrong, would you be ok with that? Would you just let them be behind you not knowing what their motives are or if they're willing to get physical with you or if they're armed? Unless you're an idiot, you would care and THAT is the situation we were talking about. If a cop told you to dispurse in a different situation, then yes, I'm with you on the "screw that" sentiment.
Then he's a bad cop and most likely a bad person. However, excessive acceleration is different than DUIs...so I'm not following you. Did he use that as an excuse to hand out DUIs?
You're close, but you're missing some groups like: rookies on power trips, the cowards collecting a check, the politicians, the equal opportunity hires (not a racist thing, well, it is, but by the hiring party not the other cops...ask and I'll explain), etc. Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 11 2006,23:02
He wasn't the greatest cop ever. If he was on his way to pick up lunch, you'd've to go on a killing spree before he'd ever approach you. However, he cited people for that acceleration shit. After which point they usually hung themselves on the rope he provided. If I ever saw a scenario for which the phrase "shooting ducks in a barrel" was invented, those were it. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 12 2006,10:27
I aint trying to get up in your face, brother... I'm just saying that if the Marines in Iraq had half as many "isolated incidents" as bad cops in America have, I'd become anti-military. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 12 2006,12:16
I wasn't sure of the tone in your earlier message and I was ready to throw down. (I'm not having a good Tuesday or Wednesday) I get what you're saying. Hell, I could tell you worse stories than what you're finding in the MSM. I'm just trying to keep everyone's head on straight. I'll come back to this when I get back from golf to explain myself. Posted by GORDON on Jul. 30 2006,08:53
Man arrested for taking a picture of police with his cell phone camera.Aparently there's even a new law against that. < http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html > Posted by Malcolm on Jul. 31 2006,08:14
What in the fuck? I don't say this too often, but I hope there's some suing going on. Every goddamned day, I find myself more of the opinion that the police need to be eliminated and be replaced w\ private security companies hired by the city/county/whatever. Posted by Leisher on Jul. 31 2006,09:52
While, I have heard rumors of a law making it illegal to take certain pictures (not police related), there currently is no law like the ACLU guy said. That cop was simply fucking with that kid and he'll pay for it. If the kid doesn't sue it'll be a write up. If the kid sues, that cop is going to lose his job. Guaranteed. Posted by GORDON on Jan. 12 2010,10:56
Cops still arresting people for recording them in Massachusetts.< http://www.boston.com/news....ordings > QUOTE Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording
Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs. “One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’ The charge? Illegal electronic surveillance. Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 12 2010,12:02
Who will watch the watchers? Because whoever that is, he's under arrest.
Posted by TPRJones on Jan. 12 2010,12:06
QUOTE In arresting people such as Glik and Surmacz, police are saying that they have not consented to being recorded, that their privacy rights have therefore been violated, and that the citizen action was criminal. Perhaps this is correct in a legal sense, but I say bullshit. When on duty a cop is not an individual, he is the embodiment of the state. And we should be able to record the state in action any damn time we want. The same goes for other civil servants and state embloyees. When on the job the regular rules don't apply, and they have to be upheld to a higher standard. Those with power over their fellow citizens should have to meet higher standards in order to justify that power. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||