True, but I think the Cops get the benefit of the doubt in the editing room if there is something that may be out of line. Otherwise this show would have lasted about one season and then no other department would have allowed it.

 

 

Exactly. And that's why people videotape cops when the opportunity presents itself. For their own editing room.

 

Plus, the allure of a payday for incriminating video and the ease of which it is to just pull your phone out and videotape doesn't make it any easier on the cops.

Supreme Court has agreed that any filming or taping of LEO is legal providing you do nothing to impede, interfere with their job. Standing back taping is neither. Actually it helps both sides, one side could say something that happened that didn't.

 

There is an app called QIK, and I suggest that everyone get it. If you are approached just tap once to open the app, then again to record. The video and audio starts right away and you are going out live on your free QIK channel, when the recording stops, it gets archived to your channel. I have mine set up so as soon as the video stops, it goes directly to my Youtube and Facebook pages. The video stops when you lose wifi or cell singal, or both, or if you turn the app off, or if someone else turns it off, or destroys the phone. I have known of one person who used QIK and all of a sudden his phone was "lost" after the LEO took it, and they lied about the events that night. Little did the LEO know that there was a record of the video in two different locations, and they were caught.

 

Where was this at?

Same thought here, if the LEO is not doing anything wrong, illegal, why are they worrying so much?

.

 

You ask that like every police officer worries about being filmed. You realize there are thousands of police officers in the US right? The few you've seen on YouTube represent a small percentage. Not to mention most of the people posting YouTube videos are looking for a certain reaction and probably don't post any of the videos where they don't get that reaction.

I'm a proponent of having at the very least audio recording anytime a LEO has any dealing with a citizen. Believe it or not, people file bogus complaints. When someone makes it formal, and its a lie and is proven to be a lie, arresting for filing a false report is a good deterent for future false complaints.

 

You ask that like every police officer worries about being filmed. You realize there are thousands of police officers in the US right? The few you've seen on YouTube represent a small percentage. Not to mention most of the people posting YouTube videos are looking for a certain reaction and probably don't post any of the videos where they don't get that reaction.

 

Yes I am aware, as I am in the field of work who would know. And no I did not ask it that way! It's everyone's right to video tape, it doesn't matter if you are involved or not. It also helps weed out the bad. Just YouTube stuff like open carry, most LEO so the correct thing, one LEO even told the guy "if you show me yours ill show you mine". But there are a few that do not do the correct thing, and that is what everyone needs to be concerned with.

I'm a proponent of having at the very least audio recording anytime a LEO has any dealing with a citizen. Believe it or not' date=' people file bogus complaints. When someone makes it formal, and its a lie and is proven to be a lie, arresting for filing a false report is a good deterent for future false complaints.[/quote']

 

Agreed!

^ I agree with you Joe, but I think in this day and age Police are getting tired of everyone filming everything they do looking for one slip up. Can you imagine if a camera followed everyone around at work. Then your boss could see when we were goofing off, acting busy when we weren't or surfing the net, let alone making a mistake that could cast our employer money or harm the well being of others. I just think that for the most part Police officers are just tired of getting YouTubed every time they turn around.

 

I understand the filming may bug them. But it does not give them a right to stop it. Them being uncomfortable does not give them a right to violate constitutional rights.

^ I agree with you Joe, but I think in this day and age Police are getting tired of everyone filming everything they do looking for one slip up. Can you imagine if a camera followed everyone around at work. Then your boss could see when we were goofing off, acting busy when we weren't or surfing the net, let alone making a mistake that could cast our employer money or harm the well being of others. I just think that for the most part Police officers are just tired of getting YouTubed every time they turn around.

 

That's the cost of living in a "free" society. By design the citizens hold the government accountable. Police work comes with a hell of a lot more responsibility than your average paper shuffling job and with that responsibility comes necessary scrutiny.

 

Yes I am aware, as I am in the field of work who would know. And no I did not ask it that way! It's everyone's right to video tape, it doesn't matter if you are involved or not. It also helps weed out the bad. Just YouTube stuff like open carry, most LEO so the correct thing, one LEO even told the guy "if you show me yours ill show you mine". But there are a few that do not do the correct thing, and that is what everyone needs to be concerned with.

 

There are a lot of police officers out there. I'm certain there are more than a few bad ones. And I have never said anything to dispute the fact that anyone can film them.

 

I have seen some of these open carry videos you talk about and the people responsible for making them are idiots most of the time IMO.

I understand the filming may bug them. But it does not give them a right to stop it. Them being uncomfortable does not give them a right to violate constitutional rights.

I agree that they can be videoed never said that they couldn't or shouldn't. I was just pointing out why they could get tired of it.

 

That said, which amendment gives the constitutional right to invade others privacy and video them. Now I'm not saying that they can't be videoed, just not sure where it is at in the constitution.

I agree that they can be videoed never said that they couldn't or shouldn't. I was just pointing out why they could get tired of it.

 

That said, which amendment gives the constitutional right to invade others privacy and video them. Now I'm not saying that they can't be videoed, just not sure where it is at in the constitution.

 

 

Not really invading their privacy if they are in public.

I agree that they can be videoed never said that they couldn't or shouldn't. I was just pointing out why they could get tired of it.

 

That said, which amendment gives the constitutional right to invade others privacy and video them. Now I'm not saying that they can't be videoed, just not sure where it is at in the constitution.

 

Since the amendments protect citizens from government excess, it is difficult to cite them in defense of the government's powers against its citizenry. Considering recording devices didn't exist when the BoR was written it's hard to say, but one could readily make a First Amendment argument for its use (assembly? speech? even the press?). If the videos are being confiscated then there is certainly a Fourth Amendment protection against it. And I would go as far as to say that the Ninth Amendment implies citizens have rights beyond those specifically listed. It's hard to say that this document would allow the government to prohibit its citizens from keeping it accountable.

http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/11/supreme-court-upholds-legality-of-videotaping-police/

 

It's about the 4th and 5th paragraph down.

Also, about 1 1/2 years ago during Occupy the CPD had a couple of so called undercover officers in a car on the corner, someone went up and videotaped them in the car and the license plate. He was arrested and the camera confiscated. The judge threw it out and ordered the camera returned and said he had the right to videotape the undercover a and the car. Not sure if he sued, but he was in his right to do what he did.

I just looked at the video in the first post. In fact the video showed that the first two, even the first four officers, we in the right for what they did, the guy was clearly resisting. This video would be what the PD would need if there the guy said he was mistreated.