Jump to content


Former Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


10 Good


  • Location
    San Antonio, TX


  • Wide Layout


  • Set Default Read Receipt for Private Messages

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I mean, I guess I'll just plug along and do what I can with my life and make the most of things. Learning to live with my "reading comprehension problem" is going to be really tough.
  2. "And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it." Something tells me I'm NOT the person with the reading comprehension problem. The person who called your bluff and corrected you? Maybe.
  3. I can definitely get down with the bolded. How I feel already actually.
  4. I think that'd be you. You insinuated that there wasn't a right to record audio and asked me to show proof, I showed you where the Supreme Court denied certiorari when States tried to circumvent them and apply "wiretapping" laws to citizens trying to record audio.
  5. "And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it." I thought I was just answering your question since you seemed confused about what the Supreme Court had said and told me to show you.
  6. Understand the bolded and think that's a fair point. Personally, I wouldn't expect anything but video as it was normally recorded/how officers were trained for their own safety, and I'm probably pretty pro-police on that one.
  7. Michael Slager, Line 1. Michael Slager, Line 1. Here, no problem asking me for links to law stuff I've mentioned, so I'll link that one. He's the South Carolina officer now charged with murder. Video shows South Carolina officer Michael Slager shooting suspect in back as he runs away - newsnet5.com Cleveland
  8. I hear lots of people saying, "if you aren't do anything wrong, you won't be arrested", but it's weird that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about being recorded" doesn't seem to have as much steam.
  9. "Confusing everyone with wiretapping cases" was basically what Illinois policemen had strategized to charge people as a way of strong-arming them into being scared to record for fear of arrest. The Supreme Court denied cert. for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals though. You can read more about that one. The police arrested a woman for "wiretapping" because she was accusing an officer of sexual harassment and felt she was being bullied. She was arrested for her troubles, but a Judge acquitted her. Probably someone "looking for a settlement" or "trying to record hoping to provoke an officer". "And either way they will eventually revisit it"... same goes for a lot of laws. If police are arresting people for marijuana, they don't get to use an "eventually the Supreme Court will review it" defense. ***Side note: if it were as easy to get a settlement and the "cost of defending" thing were as people here have seemed to opine, then there'd be way more settlements than there actually are and people would all be rich, just going around getting settlements against one another. Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois - tribunedigital-chicagotribune ACLUPennsylvania ? Know Your Rights When Taking Photos and Making Video and Audio Recordings | Genius
  10. My solution: audio and video required and if not provided, then it's in a Judge's discretion whether or not to proceed with charges and/or exclude evidence. Build in some exceptions like good faith, being able to prove up through other means in the absence of a recording via other means, etc. Since it's being recorded, defer to the officer's decision on someone being too close to them to pose a danger (will be on video/audio anyway). Give and take. Officers wear recording equipment, citizens know they are wearing them and don't need to be close filming, etc. Officers get more deference on their evaluation of a threat because people lose an excuse to go near them.
  11. To the second, I've seen police try to justify some pretty ridiculous stuff. If you say 45-49 feet is illegal, you are letting them arrest at that range if they want. Maybe it comes down to some crook lawyer who everyone would like to see actually trying to be a cop getting the person off in court, but right now that's usually how it works for ambiguous things like disorderly conduct, failure to disperse, failure to identify, etc. You seem to want to give arrest powers that you don't agree should be strictly enforced. Either way, 50 feet is a fairly ambiguous distance and lots of problems could arise. What happens with arrests in crowds where people can't move that far away immediately?
  12. To the first, maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm pretty sure audio is covered as well. Some States tried prosecuting under wiretap statutes, but for those to apply, you need a reasonable expectation of privacy. Pretty sure the SC has covered this, if nothing else, by denying certiorari. Again, that's just my "anti cop" understanding of precedence.
  13. #1 - 50 feet is enough that you can't get audio. What good is video without audio (unless the PDs would budge some on the camera issues)? #2 - What about citizen's safety? The public-at-large would be far safer if every car leaving work was stopped and searched for illegal activity. However, at the same time, that's not very convenient for the public and counter to the Constitution. Could you be more specific about what you suggest aside from a citizen being far enough outside of range to get audio (or even close-up video)? How does an officer determine 49 versus 51 feet? How would you prove that up at trial? Would a better solution not be to just not interfere with the crime scene [or yourself commit a crime]? Is the way 'disorderly conduct' is legally construed to give deference to the officer to make an arrest not liberally construed enough for you? #3 - What happens to someone who doesn't have the requisite intent to be within 50 feet of an officer conducting an arrest? If someone is pulled over, does a driver need to swerve outside a 50 foot radius from them? What if an unruly sports fan is arrested at a game and someone happens to be on their phone? Should the officer be able to check and make sure they aren't filming so not to violate any laws? If not, what becomes apparent enough for an investigative detention? Sorry if any of these waste your time, so just give me your analysis on whatever you wish.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.