Court: Videotaping police is constitutional act

[Salmoneye]

Curiously, the same was thought of weapons. Concealed carry was considered suspect unless there was a valid reason stemming from the person’s rights or social convention., and could be regulated. Open carry was considered more honest, and a simple exercise of personal rights.

You had me, right till there...

ADDING:

And the rest of your post seems to be excusing forced entry without a warrant simply because the LEO's were 'riled up'...

[animal]

that’s OK, don’t want you . ... joke

not because they were riled up, but trying to secure an area that was in chaos.
Excusing, going after someone recording, no. Excusing "collateral damage" maybe. Given the situation the cops were in, it depends highly on other actions the recorders took … as to whether the cops were justified in going after them. There’s a lot that hasn’t been reported about this particular mess, and probably won’t ever be. You’ll get the full side of the story as presented by the "teens" and their mother, though.

[Salmoneye]

While I understand that the LEO's were rightfully upset about the loss of a 'brother', they do not help the situation by stomping on the constitution...

[animal]

Nice sentiment, but I don’t give cops a pass for emotional considerations.

Just from experience, and knowing a few details... I think it’s likely the teens and/or mom did something stupid, and appeared aggressive to the cops. Given the dangers inherent to the area they were in, I think it’s reasonable to be less tolerant of aggressive behavior than under "normal" circumstances.

Cops also have the right to self protection. If they were honestly trying to secure their own safety, and had reasonable cause to act upon a belief that they were in danger … Constitutional principles were upheld, not trampled upon.
Whether the teens actually posed a danger, and what they were doing is irrelevant. What matters is … what the police reasonably believed the teens were doing.

not enough info to judge, imo.

[jimpeel]

Along these same lines, a Florida judge ruled Tuesday (5-22-12) that flashing of the headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a police presence is protected free speech. We'll see where that goes.

VIDEO SOURCE

Warning Other Drivers Of Speed Traps Is Constitutionally Protected Free Speech
Driver in Florida can't be cited for using his lights to communicate
AOL Original Content Posted: May 24, 2012 | By: AOL Autos Staff

A judge in Florida ruled on Tuesday that flashing one's headlights to warn other drivers of speed traps set by police is protected by the First Amendment.

...

The judge agreed that the officer misapplied a law meant to ban motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights and ruled that the law does not apply to people using headlights as a form of communication. Thus, the court decided, citing Kintner was, in fact, a violation of one of his Constitutionally-protected rights.

[MORE]