TorilMUD Forums

I've read a couple articles about this... basically you can be arrested and charged with at least in illinois a felony for recording an onduty police officer.

This chick is apparently facing 75 years in prison and a felony conviction for recording an on duty police officer apparently trying to engage in some funny business with her (while responding to a domestic dispute call with her SO in the other room)

The interesting part is the conjecture that the law exists so the state can intimidate people because if they actually ever tried to enforce it it would probably be thrown out by the supreme court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/0 ... k2%7C69598

That's just insane. I can understand not videotaping a sting operation or something that requires secrecy, but police should be checked whenever possible. This allows them too much power without accountability.

The other issue you bring up happens all the time. It's a bit ridiculous, really. It would be nice if there were other avenues for the court system to check the legislature with respect to unconstitutional laws. I don't see the need for standing in certain issues. If a law clearly violates the constitution, any citizen should be able to bring a claim to the court to overturn the law. Without such avenues for justice, people are simply scared into relinquishing their rights because they either don't have the money to defend themselves or they're worried the lawyer they can afford would not be good enough. It's disgusting.

Crazy...

That's ok. Police unions in my area keep resisting cruiser cameras. Apparently, cops don't like things like accountability and evidence.

Don't you remember how that cop acted when I took his picture in that bar in New Orleans? I'm STILL surprised I didn't get hauled into jail that night. I still have the photos, but I never posted them anywhere.

yep...

i was thinking about it a couple months ago...

we were f*king stupid to leave that place and walk home that night half drunk (well I was half drunk you and Laurel were wasted out of your mind)... absolutely mind boggling stupid given the incident you photographed.

kiryan wrote:yep...

i was thinking about it a couple months ago...

we were f*king stupid to leave that place and walk home that night half drunk (well I was half drunk you and Laurel were wasted out of your mind)... absolutely mind boggling stupid given the incident you photographed.

Damn. I should have stayed a day in NO. I feel like I missed out on the best part of the trip.

port of call was pretty cool... i have to say that and halloween were the highlight of our time in NO.

If I had to choose between the cruise and NO, I choose the cruise... so you certainly didn't miss the best part.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 82122.html

or apparently in your front yard in Rochester, NY.

although its unclear, she may have been arrested for refusing to comply with an officer's order... still he had no business giving that order.

I hope she gets a nice payday courtesy of the Rochester PD.

I'm fairly forgiving of cops, because really, all people resist transparency and accountability.

However, if cops don't want the public recording them for 'security reasons,' however, they should really video tape themselves in a secure, accountable manner. Their use of force can only be justified if carried out within the bounds of the law. Someone should be video taping every thing they do.

It can be the cops, or it can be the rest of us. I agree with the security concerns of police - in terms of being photographed and video taped. I wouldn't want gangsters taking pictures of me and my car either.

But for no video at all? It's just not acceptable.

I disagree with you on police. The more power you wield, the more transparent you must be. Police have extreme amounts of power and exercise it constnatly. There should be no law against videotaping or recording officers of the public... whether in the employment office, welfare office, department human services, police officers, court or congress.

There should very very very few secrets.

I do agree with you on department controlled video recordings, but that still shouldn't take away from the public's right to record them in public... and certainly not while you are on your own front yard.

kiryan wrote:I disagree with you on police. The more power you wield, the more transparent you must be. Police have extreme amounts of power and exercise it constnatly. There should be no law against videotaping or recording officers of the public... whether in the employment office, welfare office, department human services, police officers, court or congress.

There should very very very few secrets.

I do agree with you on department controlled video recordings, but that still shouldn't take away from the public's right to record them in public... and certainly not while you are on your own front yard.

What I'm saying is that either the police must record or you must record. You can't eliminate one without guaranteeing the other.

A police officer should be allowed reasonable security from harassment and threats. My recommendation is that the police should record video of everything they do in the name of the public.

It's not acceptable to say that the public can't record because the police are recording. I don't trust the police to police themselves.

Corth wrote:It's not acceptable to say that the public can't record because the police are recording. I don't trust the police to police themselves.

I don't trust them either. But that would be the standard by which the public wouldn't record.

Police videoing themselves would be worthless. A stationary camera mounted onto a patrol car would be great except that cops would just move the angle the car is parked. For non traffic stop situations i guess you are expecting officers to tote around a hand held camera - which is absurd. No - the more reasonable conclusion is that the cops get used to being filmed by the public.

he was probably thinking about something like the GoPro, helmet-mountable HD camera that weighs about 6 oz

the big thing holding back ubiquitous recording is battery life

If they can carry guns, they can carry cameras.

I don't think it was unreasonable for the police to ask the woman to go inside, especially if she is showing anti-police behavior, and by video taping and getting right in there she is on some levels of anti police sentiment. I do agree they should video tape themselves. It will help to weed out those who are there for a paycheck and benifits and those who want to make a difference in the world. However I think tue video tape should not be admissible in criminal court, they should only be used for internal reviews of how the individual is acting and behaving in the line of thier job.

amena wolfsnarl wrote:I don't think it was unreasonable for the police to ask the woman to go inside, especially if she is showing anti-police behavior, and by video taping and getting right in there she is on some levels of anti police sentiment. I do agree they should video tape themselves. It will help to weed out those who are there for a paycheck and benifits and those who want to make a difference in the world. However I think tue video tape should not be admissible in criminal court, they should only be used for internal reviews of how the individual is acting and behaving in the line of thier job.

How is that not unreasonable? She was not endangering the police officer's life by using a video camera. Is it anti-police? One could make the argument, but it would be impossible to extend that argument to imply danger to the officer. His only concern was for his job, not his life.

I've gone on a bunch of ride alongs when I was looking to become a officer when I was younger. And every officer I rode with all said don't turn your back on a crowd, or even a individual cause you never know when shits going wrong. Don't put yourself in a situation where you can be hurt or attacked. There was more than one person there, is it really unreasonable for a police officer to not want to have to worry about someone behind thier back when they are searching a vehicle? You do have to be a little paranoid to be an officer cause things can go wrong and you want to make sure you come home at the end of the day. It's a good practice for an officer to get into, not putting yourself in a situation where there is an opportunity for things to go wrong.


One thing I just thought of is by demanding that police be video taped do we not open the door for private industry to do the same? Is that something people could agree to live with? Being constantly video taped everyday at the office or worksite?

There is nothing wrong with being anti-police.

I understand that cops have to be concerned with what is going on behind their back. However, people have the right to congregate peacefully in public areas - and certainly on their own front lawn. In the absence of an actual crime being committed the officers must respect this basic right of the people. The police simply cannot break the law in order to uphold it. If they have a problem with that idea then they should have gotten into another field. And Teflor, the day that the government says I can't record the police because they are doing it themselves, is the day the Constitution truly becomes a dead document.

Corth wrote:And Teflor, the day that the government says I can't record the police because they are doing it themselves, is the day the Constitution truly becomes a dead document.

Actually, they already do any number of things internally. The government ensures it carries out its own court orders, it polices its own police and the constitution isn't a dead document.

These things can be done free of corruption, don't mistake the fact that they rarely are done that way to think that it is impossible.

If the police are truly being video taped 100% of the time, how exactly can you have a reasonable objection?

your right there is nothing wrong with being anti police, but by coming off as anti police towards an officer, you automatically increase the threat level that officer feels. Which helps for them to justify any actions they feel neccessary to decrease that threat level.

and really doing what the officer asks you to do, within reason is just good practice. They can over react to situations, such as this, who can blame them. You will save yourself alot of trouble by just going onto your porch. Why bother to antagonize a police officer when they are already in a stressful situation? Your just looking to cause trouble for the officer and for yourself. There was nothing they couldnt record from the front step of the house as they could record from thier front lawn.

because we are free citizens, entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness, free from intrusion by government ... or at least we used to / should be.

While you may be able to justify intrusion on this woman's liberty ... by saying its not necessary because the police record themselves or because the officer feels a threat level and has a "right" to reduce that threat level... it still is an affront to liberty and a slippery slope to authoritarian government rule. Government workers serve the public... when they are engaged as agents of the state, they lose their rights to feel safe. Just like a soldier loses his rights as an individual when he becomes "property" of the US government.

There is no reason why a citizen exercising liberty in their own damn front yard should have to obey a police officer because he doesn't like being recorded. She could've retreated, but she should not have to. Just liek the kid engaged in open carry... should not be subjected to harassment from the police just because they don't feel safe. It is his legal right. Yes I know the cop was mistaken on what the law was and that was his basis for making contact, but he over reacted because he ran into someone who didn't submit to his authority... like this woman who video taped them... the cops can not be allowed to intimidate people just beacuse they "feel threatened", its complete and utter bullshit.

I concede that she needs to be held accountable for refusing to obey an officer, but this should amount to civil disobedience, the DA should decline to prosceute, and she should get the same treatment as the union protestors in Wisconsin. which is nothing.

I'm sorry but if a police officer gives you an illegal and unjust order the right thing to do IS DISOBEY. Most of us are cowards and will follow an illegal and unjust order because it's the path of least resistance. The woman in Rochester should be hailed as a hero for standing her ground against an illegal and unjust order despite the fact that doing so got her handcuffed and locked up. That is the type of action which allows our democracy to function. If everyone stopped fighting back against government when it overreached then eventually we would be guaranteed a dictatorship.

I disagree that you can break the law and then expect not to be charged or punished. I agree you should disobey an unjust order.

The concept of civil disobedience is to break the law and accept the consequences as a matter of protest. I agree with civil disobedience.

kiryan wrote:I disagree that you can break the law and then expect not to be charged or punished. I agree you should disobey an unjust order.

The concept of civil disobedience is to break the law and accept the consequences as a matter of protest. I agree with civil disobedience.

Approves. Sort of.

I'm not talking about civil disobediance Kiryan. That term implies that you are breaking the law for some sort of moral reason. Rather, I am saying that we need more people to stand up for their lawful rights. Like the lawful right to stand on your front lawn and videotape the police - even if the officer is threatening to lock you up for your lawful act. The officer doesn't make the law, and the young woman who was arrested was committing no crime, and thus committing no civil disobediance. If anyone was committing civil disobediance here, it was the officer.

Corth wrote:I'm not talking about civil disobediance Kiryan. That term implies that you are breaking the law for some sort of moral reason. Rather, I am saying that we need more people to stand up for their lawful rights. Like the lawful right to stand on your front lawn and videotape the police - even if the officer is threatening to lock you up for your lawful act. The officer doesn't make the law, and the young woman who was arrested was committing no crime, and thus committing no civil disobediance. If anyone was committing civil disobediance here, it was the officer.

Rights should be exercised, or they will wither away.

Corth wrote:I'm not talking about civil disobediance Kiryan. That term implies that you are breaking the law for some sort of moral reason. Rather, I am saying that we need more people to stand up for their lawful rights. Like the lawful right to stand on your front lawn and videotape the police - even if the officer is threatening to lock you up for your lawful act. The officer doesn't make the law, and the young woman who was arrested was committing no crime, and thus committing no civil disobediance. If anyone was committing civil disobediance here, it was the officer.

isn't failure to comply with a police officer's order a crime? I'm pretty sure it is. Now that I think of it, there may be "lawful order" language in there. When an officer tells you to do something, you really need to ask them am I required to comply. If they say yes, you are basically breaking the law by not obeying... and at that point depending on whether you felt it was just and worthy of protest, I'd call it civil disobedience.

A bit of a follow-up to the lady in NY.

http://rochester.indymedia.org/feature/ ... /index.php

Oh, the police are such arrogant assholes sometimes.

kiryan wrote:

Corth wrote:I'm not talking about civil disobediance Kiryan. That term implies that you are breaking the law for some sort of moral reason. Rather, I am saying that we need more people to stand up for their lawful rights. Like the lawful right to stand on your front lawn and videotape the police - even if the officer is threatening to lock you up for your lawful act. The officer doesn't make the law, and the young woman who was arrested was committing no crime, and thus committing no civil disobediance. If anyone was committing civil disobediance here, it was the officer.

isn't failure to comply with a police officer's order a crime? I'm pretty sure it is. Now that I think of it, there may be "lawful order" language in there. When an officer tells you to do something, you really need to ask them am I required to comply. If they say yes, you are basically breaking the law by not obeying... and at that point depending on whether you felt it was just and worthy of protest, I'd call it civil disobedience.

Most jurisdictions criminalize the failure to comply with the lawful demand of a police officer. The key being a lawful demand. Just because a police officer tells you to do something doesn't mean that the demand is lawful. Police officers cannot just simply make up the law as they go along. For instance, it would not be a crime to refuse to jump off a bridge because an officer demanded that you do so.

kifle... surprise, they're union.

its not the exception its the rule. I've had 3 or so serious contacts with the law, never convicted of anything. They're always dicks if you refuse to cooperate. It is retaliation for exercising your right to remain silent or for daring to challenge what they "suggest" is the proper behavior. The same goes with CPS, you challenge what they say is how you have to raise your kids, they'll retaliate.

CPS and the police tried to tell me that a college campus is no place for an unsupervised minor because there is 1 registered sex offender attending classes. They also intimated that being 12.9 is too young to start college and be unsupervised.

Strange thing is I see 8-11 year olds riding bikes down city sidewalks and walking around at the mall unaccompanied ALL THE TIME in the summer. Where is the investigation of these kids?

Right, you only get an investigation when you challenge them.