JokersWild24

I see reading comprehension is not a strength tonight.

I suspect that "mute" features aren't a strength... ever.

Again, this issue is officer safety vs. individual rights.

 

And you are definitively the person with the reading comprehension problem.

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.

Once again it is YOUR reading comprehension problem. I didn't insinuate that at all. I have said more than once the public has a right to record the police, I even said we trained new officers that way.

"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.

I think we have the Freedom to record video/audio but not the Right to. If it was an outright Right, at some point the police would be forced to accommodate individuals at all crime scenes and allow them access.

 

I just think it comes down to we have the Freedom to video the actions of police, but have no Right to interfere to do so.

I can definitely get down with the bolded. How I feel already actually.

Are you being purposely obtuse?

 

We are past those cases, those cases show that citizens have a right to video and audio record the police. The issue that has to be decided by the Supreme Court is where the line is drawn between a citizens right to video and audio record the police and a police officers right to be safe.

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.

There you go, just make the issue more confusing for our membership. Fine job joker, fine job...

"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.

FWIW I think fewer and fewer officers are concerned about being recorded. I think it is more of an old school thing.

 

A problem with Body Cameras is the first time they aren't switched on or get switched off accidentally during a fight everyone will cry there is a cover up.

A second problem is that in a physical situation they can be knocked off, aimed in a way that doesn't capture the encounter or not be pointed in the same way the officer is looking when he fires his weapon.

 

Body cameras are a great step...but just don't crazy when the body camera doesn't see everything or capture every incident the way we would all like for it to be.

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.

Eventually it will happen and be captured on video. The whole tide of this will change at that point.

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

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.

Let's not confuse everyone with the wiretapping cases.

 

The issue here is just because current smartphone tech doesn't have the capability to pick up long range, directional audio doesn't give citizens the right to get as close to an officer in an emergency situation as they deem fit.

 

And why speculate, if the Supreme Court covered the audio portion by all means let us have it.

 

And either way they will eventually revisit it.

"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

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.

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?

On #1 , 50 feet is probably a pipe dream but 20 to 25 feet sounds about right. But more to your point, the Supreme Court says video, correct? Nothing about audio in there that I am aware of. And at some point the Supreme Court will probably have to take up the audio issue too. I see this one as a loser for 1st Amendment and a winner for Police safety. I just don't see any competent court ruling anyone is entitled to audio of third party police actions if it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the officers. If you want that kind of audio you will need to invest in professional equipment to eavesdrop from a distance.

 

On #2 any officer that tries to make a case that is in the 45 to 50 range needs his head examined. Think of it like speeding, the speed limit may be 65 but most officers give you until 75 (or more) before they ticket you. In this case the rule may be something like 50 feet but you wouldn't be charged until you came close to 20 feet away, this would be pretty clear to everyone in a trial.

 

On #3 (and I realize this is getting above some of you for good reason) mental state would have to be a part of the law. If you are knowingly taking video then you need to know to back the you know what up.

 

Finally, I am all for citizens videoing everything that happens (the government is sure working on that) but an officer's right to be safe trumps a citizens right to video every time.

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.

Probably true. When the bikers got arrested a couple weeks ago, most people didn't care. And I am sure there were a lot of people arrested who didn't have anything to do with the violence. Wrong place, wrong time. Police just trying to keep the man down.

Being 100% serious with this bc I can honestly see it either way:

We all know you are anti-cop. If you want to debate any real issues in this thread fire away but don't waste my time.

50 feet is about what it should be.

 

And for all you naysayers that want to pile on the 50 foot rule, an officers safety far far far far far outweighs a citizens right to film.

 

Maybe we can hope for something like a National "25 and Alive" Campaign - Stay 25 Feet away from working Police Officers at all times

#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.

"Best of the best" seems to imply smarter people (on paper) like college grads. I don't think it's an intelligence issue.

I don't either, at least entirely.

I think it's more of an "hey, if you mess up, we have applicants waiting to take your place" thing.

Disagree with the logic of more pay = better officers.

That's something I think would actually improve officers. I know that plenty deserve more pay than they get for what they do and what they put up with. I think my post history is pretty consistent on that despite what anyone might think. That's just simple economics to me-- pay enough and you attract the best of the best. Some who are already doing it would still be doing it, but they'd have enough applicants to weed out knuckleheads too.

Look Closely: Can You Tell These Cellphones Are Actually Weapons in Disguise? | Video | TheBlaze.com

Thanks.

Better keep reading.

What does the rest of the paragraph have to do with a statement that has little to no basis? Many examples out there of firearms made to look like smartphones? That's some Bond gadgets.

That is something else I was thinking about. I am sure there are many examples of firearms out there made to look like smart phones. And all it takes is for an officer to be wrong one time about that and you are dead.

 

We have an angry mob mentality in this country and it is going to get worse before it gets better.

 

Think about the majority of the national incidents involving the police, most of the them involve an angry, law breaking, out of control, mob.

To the bolded, are you really being serious?

Powerbeats by Dre......

 

Terrible! You are better off with the headphones that Apple supplies with the Phone. Anybody want a Black & Red pair really cheap?:poop:

Have had quite a few problems with my Beats By Dre. Wish I'd bought Parrot Zik headphones. There are some cool things about Beats headphones, but overall, you can find way better for much cheaper.

I've already had to return one pair of Beats and the range on them is horrible.

I will never buy a Ford!! Bought brand new 2002 Explorer for over 30k.. fuel pump went out at 17k, then transmission issue at 45k (warranty covered both). Then when warranty ended at 75k the real issues started. About 7 different wheel bearings, rebuilt transmission, rear end differential, some switch that controls cruise control, cracked plastic on rear hatch.. and I'm sure there are more. I looked up on the internet and found THOUSANDS of owners with the same exact issues and Ford would do nothing to even assist with repair costs. The service manager even admitted they are on their 4th fix on the wheel bearings and they still won't assist.

 

I've kept the vehicle as I need a 4 wheel drive where I live and the interior and exterior are in mint shape and the ride is nice.

 

I let the entire floor room full of customers know about their product the last time I was there. I'm about to go test drive a full size truck and let them get all the deals worked out and then tell them why I won't purchase it after I would have if they would have just admitted the issue that are published on-line for everyone to see... there, my 10,000 rant about Ford is over.

Brother has/had a Ford Diesel. Thing stays messed up more than it runs. Shame because it could be a nice truck.

You mean like attempting to manage mobs that are setting the city on fire ? If I have a prosecutor coming at me full on because I attempted to curtail crime, then I probably have a little work slow down as well.

 

I hope the good people of Baltimore understand what they have elected and the consequences for pulling that lever....looks like the chickens have come home to roost in MD>

No, in the police's case, I was meaning more like the $6.3 million in lawsuits that the city has paid out since 2011, more that. Or like the $250K and $50K suits they settled in the past two weeks. That's more of what I was going for.

Most people don't understand what Tort Reform has really done in some areas. Those figures are over 100+ cases they'd lost or settled.

Don't know what your last sentence really means, so yea... whatever I guess.

42 murders in a month is what happens when "there's a lot of egregious misconduct that escapes full prosecution"...look at the other side of that same coin. Societal, not a police issue

Apples to oranges. Out of scope comparison.

The point I'm making is that we can probably pump the breaks on the poor PD being victimized here. They've done a good job of harmful PR on their own.

Joker I get the point that your trying to make, and your point would be valid if not for one simple issue. Moseby has only been prosecutor for five months. The number of cases of alleged police misconduct that were settled in civil courts that she would have chosen not to prosecute would be few, and most likely none at all.

 

I think you, Bash, and I all agree that her future relations w/ police are damaged. I would submit that her public comments, prior to, during the election, and since have served to set the tone for this problem. Her actions since have only served to seal the fate of that discord. Your point about a high number of allegations of abuse not being prosecuted is probably a big part of the reason Mosbey was elected.

 

The losers in all of this will be the people of Baltimore. I read this morning that the number of homicides in the city for the month of May was adjusted down to 42, as one was deemed to have been a justified killing. Yes I said 42 murders in one month!

 

On a side note. I have spent a little time in Baltimore and there is not enough money in the world to make me want to live there.

Let's also not forget that she was the assistant DA before this, and that she's still had chances in her four months to prosecute that she didn't take. Even if you give her a pass on her time as an assistant, the point that the police officers are the ones doing more damage to their reputations and working relationships still stands-- that's what happens in cases where there's lots of egregious misconduct that escapes full prosecution.