The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 12, 2012, 04:26 AM   #26
1911Alaska
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2012
Posts: 139
I think that it is best for citizens to be able to video tape a on duty police officer. If the police officer does his job correctly and acts in a professional manner then he has nothing to worry about.

I think in the video posted above by jimpeel. In my opinion the only thing the officer did wrong was in the beginning when he was telling the homeless guy that he was "going to **** him up". I think if the same exact situation happened and the same results happened, the actions against the officers would have been different if the officer was polite towards the homeless man. The homeless man should have stopped resisting, I don't blame the cops for holding him down and wrestling him trying to handcuff him, even though he was claiming that he was trying to put his hands behind his back. I have seen multiple videos where an officer listened to the BG and the officer lightened up and the BG took off running, pulled a weapon, or began fighting again.

If the officer acted in a more professional/polite manner then he probably would not be looking at any prison time.
1911Alaska is offline  
Old May 12, 2012, 08:37 AM   #27
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,525
I am actually surprised this topic continues. I had thought there had been several such cases already reaffirming the legality of recording police activities.

Notice I did not say "videotape." That term is quickly fading into oblivion as the technology has moved away from using tape as a storage medium.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old May 12, 2012, 02:31 PM   #28
Conn. Trooper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 530
Tape away, I am too. Just don't make yourself a target or interfere with police. No professional officer worries about people watching what they do.
Conn. Trooper is offline  
Old May 13, 2012, 08:41 PM   #29
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,327
I just had a run-in of this sort:

http://www.pixiq.com/article/arizona...recording-them

The video is hilarious.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 13, 2012, 09:42 PM   #30
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,838
Quote:
"if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"
The mere fact that I have nothing to hide gives nobody the right to look.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old May 14, 2012, 01:37 AM   #31
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
"if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Same question that was being asked when they were looking for Jews hiding in attics.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 14, 2012, 08:47 PM   #32
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,749
Exactly

Quote:
"if you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Same question that was being asked when they were looking for Jews hiding in attics.
All that seems to vary is who is doing the looking, who/what they are looking for, and the level of violence used in their tactics. Do they ask, and if refused get a search warrant and return, or do they break in with fixed bayonets (or these days, suppressors...)?

For surely they all believe is the rightousness of their cause......

kings men with drawn swords hot on the trail of a bandit is one thing, crusaders and inquisitors seeking to find heretics, quite another....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 12:00 AM   #33
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
That was extremely incisive.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 07:52 AM   #34
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 08:04 AM   #35
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
Nonsense! As police officers performing their job, they are paid by us and we should be able to record their activities to ensure they are performing their duties within the scope of the law we pay them to uphold. When they are off the clock, they have (and can expect) all the same levels of privacy as anyone else.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 09:19 AM   #36
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
We the public are not public officials performing paid work for the public...
MLeake is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 10:51 AM   #37
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Nonsense, my foot. You realize the police are often called upon to make split-second decisions on what action to take and on which others may deliberate for hours deciding whether or not that action was correct and legal. You of course are equally subject to such second-guessing.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 11:02 AM   #38
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.
Nope. I was filmed by news agencies and private parties many times in my performance of my duties in industry in public settings and I never had an objection to it, as long as people didn't get so close that they were putting themselves in danger or interfering with the work being performed.

I never felt that I had any expectation of privacy while working within the public view. I feel it would be somewhat ludicrous to expect the public to avert their gazes, and that of their cameras, just because I'm working. But then, this isn't North Korea where the state aggressively controls what can be photographed and what can't, even though it's within public view.
Don H is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 11:08 AM   #39
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Nonsense! As police officers performing their job, they are paid by us and we should be able to record their activities to ensure they are performing their duties within the scope of the law we pay them to uphold. When they are off the clock, they have (and can expect) all the same levels of privacy as anyone else.
Agreed. Further, in "public" courts have determined no real right to privacy, so police are at the same standard as Joe Shmo.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 11:38 AM   #40
Salmoneye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,387
It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public.

We are all filmed without consent in public places on a daily basis; from banks, to Micky-D's...
Salmoneye is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 11:54 AM   #41
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,769
I accept sometimes the person in contact with the police creates a drama situation.I also accept sometimes what happens next is a bit like watching sausage being made.

Maybe we wish we did not have to see it.Things should not be that way,etc.

I accept,if I am having a police contact: A)They may interview me,say there is no problem,and tell me I am free to go,or B)There may be a problem,and,at that point,I'm getting handcuffs.

In all of this process,a cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong.The police are not going to get intimidated or back down.

The camera thing,I believe if the person with the camera is pushing in close,making comments,distracting the officer,trying to intimidate with the camera,etc,they are interfering with the officer.That can get the officer killed,and it is a problem.

But 50 ft away,quietly recording,should be no problem.I believe we do have that right.

I know "Cops" is a TV show."Cops" shows police doing what they have to do.Sometimes it gets rough till the situation is under control,and we,the public,can handle it fine.

What we cannot handle,and what needs to be exposed ,are events like the Rodney King beating.

Remember,the Constitution limits what the government can do to us(sigh).A video cam may well be of more value than a gun in the face of tyranny(large or small tyranny)
HiBC is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 01:15 PM   #42
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
This is no simple matter. A person filming police activity from the window of their apartment is one thing. But the presence of a cameraman at a civil disturbance, which is usually anything but civil, can have the tendency to escalate matters. If the crowd is trying to "make a statement," or to call attention to their cause, I suspect having a news camera around will make things a little more unsettled, to say the least.

On the other hand, if the intent of the crowd is more along the lines of simple hooliganism with a little bit of thievery thrown in, then the presence of a news camera is unlikely to have any effect and in fact the cameraman may be in a bit of danger himself. These days, however, everyone but me seems to have an electronic gadget capable of producing a full-length feature film with selected short subjects. The genie is out of the bottle.

I'd have to conclude whether something is meet, right and proper is almost irrelevant. It will happen, legal or not.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 15, 2012, 03:11 PM   #43
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
I suspect having a news camera around will make things a little more unsettled, to say the least.
To hell with that damn annoying first amendment.
brickeyee is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 08:25 AM   #44
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,282
Indeed. The First Amendment trumps "unsettlement."

Further with police cams etc. any argument of privacy is out the window.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 09:29 AM   #45
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Something tells me the founding fathers did not have the same idea of privacy that we have and anyway, the camera was a few decades away.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 09:37 AM   #46
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,245
"It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public."

Except I, for one, am not so silly as to believe that when I'm outside my own home and on public streets that any great expectation of privacy attaches.

To claim such would be ludicrous, and the courts have routinely held that one surrenders expectations of privacy from observation when venturing out into public.

Similarly numerous court cases have been lodged claiming invasion of privacy in regard to traffic cameras that photograph the driver of a vehicle. As far as I know, none have been successful on that basis alone.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 11:42 AM   #47
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
As zincwarrior pointed out, the police have us on camera when they are working. That does tend to undermine their complaints, on the moral side of the house. On the legal side, with exceptions (undercovers, etc) they have no leg on which to stand.
MLeake is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 12:22 PM   #48
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I didn't think morality entered into the thing; just the legality of it.

I try not to lead such a secretive live myself that i would worry about being filmed or photographed, though I assure you "BlueTrain" is not my real name. I've started paying more attention to my personal appearance, though. You may laugh but people do get stopped based purely on their appearance or their "looks," if you will.

I wonder if it's legal to wear a mask or cover your face in public, especially given that other parts have to be covered. Funny rules we have, isn't it?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 01:43 PM   #49
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueTrain View Post
I wonder if it's legal to wear a mask or cover your face in public, especially given that other parts have to be covered. Funny rules we have, isn't it?
Coming soon to your neighborhood?

One of the banks I go to has a sign that requests all persons to remove their hats while in the bank. I simply ignore the sign and they have never mentioned it.

Hat ban in Britain

Hat ban in pubs.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old May 16, 2012, 02:15 PM   #50
animal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 705
Funny you should mention masks. The founders considered it a matter of law to be identifiable in public, a regulation of behavior.. Outward identification wasn’t a matter of privacy, it was simply part of who you were as a person. Who you were on the inside, the human being itself, was a matter of honor, and private. Well, until a person’s inner nature caused them to affect others. Then, the bad behavior could be regulated and the good rewarded.
Who you are as a person is your rightful mask, the way you present yourself, and the proper way for govt. to see you. The word person is even derived from the Latin word for mask. To the founders, wearing a mask beyond that of your status as person was an act affecting your relationship with others, and with the government. To be considered a right, wearing it would have to be an extension of other rights. Religious and medical reasons are obvious, and other reasons can be found. Showing your face was part of being honest with others. Wearing a mask without a reason was suspect and could be forbidden or regulated.
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.

And the case in Pearl, MS of the two teenagers videotaping. I’m not saying what the cops did is right, but there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been brought up.
They were serving a warrant on a child molester, the apartments were more like projects, dirtbag started shooting when they went in to get him, all hell broke loose all over the area, mother of the "kids" moved a truck that the cops outside were using as cover when the shooting started, One cop dead, two wounded, dirtbag dead.
There was a lot of movement everywhere, and all at once. Rankin County cops might have a little bit of a siege mentality right now, but in some cases it’s keeping them alive. There have been several times when they go to arrest someone, and next thing they know, "bystanders" are taking shots at them. High tension and chaotic surroundings make it unreasonable to judge some of their actionshere, imo. To expect clean-cut squeaky cleanness, you’d have to secure the area with troops before making an arrest in some of these places. No resources for that, and more people’s rights would be violated doing it.
This from a guy that won’t hesitate to rip the cops a new one when I think they deserve it.
__________________
Keep smiling ... it'll just make 'em wonder what you're up to...
animal is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13091 seconds with 7 queries