NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html

Brian D. Kelly didn't think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he's worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

His camera and film were seized by police during the May 24 stop, he said, and he spent 26 hours in Cumberland County Prison until his mother posted her house as security for his $2,500 bail.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

The criminal case relates to the sound, not the pictures, that his camera picked up.

"I didn't think I could get in trouble for that," Kelly said. "I screwed up, yeah. I know now that I can't do that. I just don't see how something like this should affect my entire life."

Whether that will happen could be determined during Kelly's preliminary hearing before District Judge Jessica Brewbaker in July.

No one seems intent on punishing him harshly.

"Obviously, ignorance of the law is no defense," District Attorney David Freed said. "But often these cases come down to questions of intent."

According to police, Kelly was riding in a pickup truck that had been stopped for alleged traffic violations.

Police said the officer saw Kelly had a camera in his lap, aimed at him and was concealing it with his hands. They said Kelly was arrested after he obeyed an order to turn the camera off and hand it over.

The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney, police said.

Kelly said his friend was cited for speeding and because his truck's bumper was too low. He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal.

After about 20 minutes, the officer cited the driver on the traffic charges and told the men they were being recorded by a camera in his cruiser, Kelly said.

"He said, 'Young man, turn off your ... camera,'¤" Kelly said. "I turned it off and handed it to him. ... Six or seven more cops pulled up, and they arrested me."

Police also took film from his pockets that wasn't related to the traffic stop, he said.

Freed said his office has handled other wiretapping cases, some involving ex-lovers or divorcing couples who are trying to record former partners doing something improper for leverage in court battles, he said.

Such charges have been dismissed or defendants have been allowed to plead to lesser counts or enter a program to avoid criminal records, he said.

The outcome hinges on whether the person had a malicious intent, Freed said.

Carlisle Police Chief Stephen Margeson said allowing Kelly to plead to a lesser charge might be proper.

"I don't think that would cause anyone any heartburn," he said. "I don't believe there was any underlying criminal intent here."

But Margeson said he doesn't regard the filing of the felony charge as unwarranted and said the officer followed procedures.

John Mancke, a Harrisburg defense attorney familiar with the wiretapping law, said the facts, as related by police, indicate Kelly might have violated the law.

"If he had the sound on, he has a problem," Mancke said.

Last year, Mancke defended a North Middleton Twp. man in a street racing case that involved a wiretapping charge. Police claimed the man ordered associates to tape police breaking up an illegal race after officers told him to turn off their cameras.

That wiretapping count was dismissed when the man pleaded guilty to charges of illegal racing, defiant trespass and obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to probation.

An exception to the wiretapping law allows police to film people during traffic stops, Mancke said.

Margeson said his department's cruisers are equipped with cameras, and officers are told to inform people during incidents that they are being recorded.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

"The law isn't solid," Keating said. "But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Kelly said he has called the American Civil Liberties Union for help in the case.

His father, Chris, said he's backing his son.

"We're hoping for a just resolution," he said.

I think if the police are actually doing their jobs right, they shouldn't be worried about being watched. I know some people claim similar things about the illegal wiretapping, but I think that's a bit different, since it targets people with much less power then police. I think once you enter the government's employ, your right to not be monitored on your job is significantly reduced.

Aaaah the land of the free....

You're in public, why do you expect privacy?

wait, what? the case law isn't in flux to my knowlege. you are allowed to record whatever you want in public and cops in particular have no expectation of privacy while on the job.

IIRC, the police have argued in court that anything taking place in public has no expectation of privacy.

Nice double standard.

IIRC, the police have argued in court that anything taking place in public has no expectation of privacy.

INdeed. If they can tape me and read my mails without my consent using the mantra "nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" I see no reason to not return the favour.

Like this? (http://www.thiscenturysucks.com/images/duct-tape-man.jpg)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

wait, what? the case law isn't in flux to my knowlege. you are allowed to record whatever you want in public and cops in particular have no expectation of privacy while on the job.

Not without consent you shouldn't - isn't there a law against taking photos of girls in changing rooms with mobile phones?

There's no problem actually taking the photo as long as it's open and, if the person photographed does not consent, you should have to give it back if requested.

If it pertains to a criminal case then you're required to hand it in to the proper authorities - of course, if you've photo'd police corruption you may be in a bit of a bind :)

If they're doing their job right and fairly, they shouldn't have to fear being monitored. Their job is to protect the public. Unfortunately there are some who don't do that job well and it takes a citizen with a video camera to ensure that justice on the streets isn't subject to double standards.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?

That's what I thought. If we define a democracy as a government that is accountable to its people, then we cannot criminalise recording government activity.

The Rodney King video is a good example of why police should be filmed while on duty.

Not without consent you shouldn't - isn't there a law against taking photos of girls in changing rooms with mobile phones? in changing rooms?

a changing room is not a "public" place.

If they're doing their job right and fairly, they shouldn't have to fear being monitored. Their job is to protect the public. Unfortunately there are some who don't do that job well and it takes a citizen with a video camera to ensure that justice on the streets isn't subject to double standards.

And now, apparently, they are moving to ensure that they can continue to do their job poorly, unfettered, and with impugnity. Another great day for us all in this here 21st Century.

in changing rooms?

a changing room is not a "public" place.

Depends on the legal definition of what is public or not - is a municipal swimming pool public property or private property?

Isn't this why surveillance cameras in public always need a sign to say that they're there?

I'm not commenting on this case, I'm commenting on the idea that people 'are allowed to record whatever they want in public' because I think I should have some degree of protection against that.

So why are security camera's allowed?

um, the whole "no expectation of privacy" thing really has no baring on this...

I'm not commenting on this case, I'm commenting on the idea that people 'are allowed to record whatever they want in public'

They're not.

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html



I think if the police are actually doing their jobs right, they shouldn't be worried about being watched. I know some people claim similar things about the illegal wiretapping, but I think that's a bit different, since it targets people with much less power then police. I think once you enter the government's employ, your right to not be monitored on your job is significantly reduced.

Under what screwy definition is taping someone in the public sphere considered wiretapping?

um, the whole "no expectation of privacy" thing really has no baring on this...

Why not? I'm asking you since you seem to have some knowledge of case law on this.

This reminds me that many consider killing a cop is so much worse than killing anyone else. Don't get me wrong, neither are good by any stretch of logic, it just seems to me both should be considered very bad, maybe little so more cilivians as it is not their job to put their life on the line.

ah, discrepancies.

Under what screwy definition is taping someone in the public sphere considered wiretapping?

the wiretapping laws are rather old and archaic. Most wiretapping laws, and this one too, seems to mostly say the effect of "it's illegal to record a conversation you are not a party to without consent".

Which makes wha the did technically illegal under wiretapping laws without being in any way wire tapping.

Depends on the legal definition of what is public or not - is a municipal swimming pool public property or private property?


There was a significant problem as well in Japan where people would sneak camera phones at certain angles or concealed spots for upskirt shots.

Technically, it's taking place in a public place, but it's sexual harassment at the least.

Why not? I'm asking you since you seem to have some knowledge of case law on this.

well, I'm a lawyer, it kinda comes with the neat piece of paper.

Alright, here we go. The 4th amendment prohibits searches without probable cause. The Courts have ruled that surveilance can constitute a search. Even if nothing is searched physically, if the police observe you, or tap your line, or anything like that, it still can constitute a search. The question is in what instance does surveilance constitute a search.

The whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing came out of a concurrence in Katz v. United States, it has to do with the idea of what constitutes a "search". In that concurrence, which was later adopted by majority opinion, the idea was that if activities take place in private, so that the person engaging in them has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the police need probable cause to engage in surveilance of those activities. however if those activities are done in such a place and time so that the individual engaging in them has no reasonable expectation of privacy, the police do not need probable cause.

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" language involves the extent the police can conduct surveilance without probable cause without violating the 4th amendment. if you have no reasonable expectation of privacy by being in public, there is no 4th amendment violation.

However this kid is not an agent of the government, so he could not by definition violate anyone's 4th amendment rights. The whole language of "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" pertains only to police surveilance without probable cause and whether or not it conflicts with the 4th amendment. It doesn't say anything at all about whether state law can make it illegal to record someone without their consent.

Isn't this why surveillance cameras in public always need a sign to say that they're there?.your assumption is 100% wrong, its all about: location, location, location.
This is an International Forum, not a US forum.
If something is "legally needed" in Kansas.. its not necessarily needed in London.
.

Depends on the legal definition of what is public or not - is a municipal swimming pool public property or private property?
like I said: location, location, location.
.


I'm commenting on the idea that people 'are allowed to record whatever they want in public' because I think I should have some degree of protection against that.I guess the Cops kicking the ass of Rodney King would 100% agree with you.

or any other cop caught on camcorder "going medieval on da negroes asses".. .. or mexican asses.. or whatever medieval

There was a significant problem as well in Japan where people would sneak camera phones at certain angles or concealed spots for upskirt shots.

Technically, it's taking place in a public place, but it's sexual harassment at the least.Location Location Location.

I'm commenting on the idea that people 'are allowed to record whatever they want in public' They're not.nonsense
some of "they" are.. and some are not.

You are NOT allowed.. but some of the NSG posters are allowed.

nonsense
some of "they" are.. and some are not.

You are NOT allowed.. but some of the NSG posters are allowed.

exactly. Some are and some are not. Hence "the people" as a collective entity do not enjoy that particular allowance.

Thus my statement is quite correct.

With everyone carrying camera phones around it's going to be impossible for the police to avoid being taped so they better behave well and set a good example for others to follow.

If it should be illegal depends on the content captured. I can see why upskirt shots or a sound recording of the cop in this case discussing the driver's criminal record and other personal information would be illegal.

Recording the police should be akin to a civic duty. Someone has to watch the watchmen.

regardless of what should be done...there was a law, he broke it...what really can you do? He'll probably get off light or get nothing at all because there was no malice, but the law is what it is.

Recording the police should be akin to a civic duty. Someone has to watch the watchmen.

Furthermore, one should be able to tape a conversation if they are already in a position to hear it.

So even if his actions were correct, because there is a law against it means he should be punished. There are laws against protesting within 0.5 miles of the Houses Of Parliament in London. Just because there is a law does not mean the law is right. Obeyance without question is how dictatorships are created, along with a climate of fear regarding the consequences of your actions against 'the state', which, by the way, is meant to serve the people and not the lother way around.

Oh please, spare the rhetoric. We do have a constitution that protects us from such harsh penalties. And what law did he break exactly? One that says you can't record someone's private conversation without their consent.

A law I'm sure each and every person here would be very happy to be under the protection of. There was nothing unjust about this law, nothing unconstitutional. It was a law that said you can't record private conversations you are not a part of.

The circumstances that ensnared him are a little unusual, but calling this a step down the road to tyranny is as stupid as saying you should be able to blow through a school zone at 100mph, because "blind adherance to the law" causes dictatorships.

If you end up in an internment camp indeffinatly when a new law states that all your personal private conversational transactions are monitored by the gov. searching for discidents,and I happen to have had an anti government thought - hey there was a law and I broke it.

see, now that would be unconstitutional.

Can we say un-con-sti-tu-tion-al? Very good, I knew we could.

And as an attorney, and a member of the ACLU I have sworn many an oath to uphold the constitution. And considering I already stated the caveat of our constitution, I can't see any reason to discuss something like this other than to continue on with your foaming at the mouth rhetoric.

Now if you want to play legal games with me, feel free, but I assure you you're way the fuck out of your league here. Come back when you have a real argument.

Go back to sleep America - your government will take care of you.

I think the tinfoil hat slipped a little off, you might want to readjust.

Oh please, spare the rhetoric. We do have a constitution that protects us from such harsh penalties. And what law did he break exactly? One that says you can't record someone's private conversation without their consent.

A law I'm sure each and every person here would be very happy to be under the protection of. There was nothing unjust about this law, nothing unconstitutional. It was a law that said you can't record private conversations you are not a part of.

The circumstances that ensnared him are a little unusual, but calling this a step down the road to tyranny is as stupid as saying you should be able to blow through a school zone at 100mph, because "blind adherance to the law" causes dictatorships.

I'm going to be nitpicky here--does the law say you can't record someone's conversation without their consent, or does it say you can't record a conversation you're not a part of, because if it's the latter, the kid has a case. He was in the truck--he can legitimately say he was a part of the conversation.

One thing is for certain--the law needs to be changed to allow for recording any conversation you're a part of. I draw the line at third party snooping, but you ought to be able to record any conversation you're a part of without having to get consent from the other party.

I'm going to be nitpicky here--does the law say you can't record someone's conversation without their consent, or does it say you can't record a conversation you're not a part of, because if it's the latter, the kid has a case. He was in the truck--he can legitimately say he was a part of the conversation.

One thing is for certain--the law needs to be changed to allow for recording any conversation you're a part of. I draw the line at third party snooping, but you ought to be able to record any conversation you're a part of without having to get consent from the other party.

I have no idea, I don't practice law in...whatever state this is.

In just about EVERY state it is illegal to record a conversation you are not, yourself, part of.

In others it is illegal to record someone without their consent.

In others it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge, but you don't need their consent, since consent is implied by remaining in the conversation (it's the difference of "do you mind if I record you" versus "I am recording you, if you don't like that stop talking')

Legally I would imagine he was not part of the conversation. Proximity to a conversation doesn't make you part of the conversation. The conversation was between police officer and driver, he was a passenger, he wasn't being talked to. Now I don't know what particular law he fell under, either he was recording the conversation without the consent of the police officer, or he was a third party recorder, I don't know. Either way something got broken it seems.

Edit: went back and reread, the article states that:

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

So whether you're a party or not is irrelevant.

I'm going to be nitpicky here--does the law say you can't record someone's conversation without their consent, or does it say you can't record a conversation you're not a part of, because if it's the latter, the kid has a case. He was in the truck--he can legitimately say he was a part of the conversation.

One thing is for certain--the law needs to be changed to allow for recording any conversation you're a part of. I draw the line at third party snooping, but you ought to be able to record any conversation you're a part of without having to get consent from the other party.

I'm pretty sure it's any conversation, whether you're a part of it or not. I was watching People's Court, and the defendant played a tape of a phone conversation that he had recorded with the plaintiff, and the Judge said he had just broken state law.

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

That's a law that needs to be changed, because that means I could be recording someone threatening my life or someone attempting to bribe me, etc., and I could be charged and thrown in jail for it.

That's a law that needs to be changed, because that means I could be recording someone threatening my life or someone attempting to bribe me, etc., and I could be charged and thrown in jail for it.

if I recall correctly, and again, I'm not 100% positive, but in general there are exceptions to this activity when it comes to discussion of illegal activity, which is to say, that those engaging in illegal activity do not gain the protection fo the law.

Just don't videotape any Scientology (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y) police officers.

I have no idea, I don't practice law in...whatever state this is.

In just about EVERY state it is illegal to record a conversation you are not, yourself, part of.

In others it is illegal to record someone without their consent.

In others it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge, but you don't need their consent, since consent is implied by remaining in the conversation (it's the difference of "do you mind if I record you" versus "I am recording you, if you don't like that stop talking')

Legally I would imagine he was not part of the conversation. Proximity to a conversation doesn't make you part of the conversation. The conversation was between police officer and driver, he was a passenger, he wasn't being talked to. Now I don't know what particular law he fell under, either he was recording the conversation without the consent of the police officer, or he was a third party recorder, I don't know. Either way something got broken it seems.

Edit: went back and reread, the article states that:



So whether you're a party or not is irrelevant.


so....under this law, in this state...

all those people taking video with sound in public that accidentally pick up strangers conversations...

all those surveillance cameras that include sound..

even making a voice memo or leaving a voice message on someone's phone when you are in a noisy public place and thus picking up conversations that you arent involved in


are committing felonies?

so....under this law, in this state...

all those people taking video with sound in public that accidentally pick up strangers conversations...

all those surveillance cameras that include sound..

even making a voice memo or leaving a voice message on someone's phone when you are in a noisy public place and thus picking up conversations that you arent involved in


are committing felonies?

Well, according to the article:

Kelly is charged under a state law that bars the intentional interception or recording of anyone's oral conversation without their consent.

So the first and third examples are out given that there was no intent. The first one I imagine so, provided that anyone under the cameras was not informed of first.

Accidentally capturing someone's voice isn't a crime. Intentionally doing so, it would appear, is.

if I recall correctly, and again, I'm not 100% positive, but in general there are exceptions to this activity when it comes to discussion of illegal activity, which is to say, that those engaging in illegal activity do not gain the protection fo the law.

I don't see any reason for the exception to go that way, though. What if I'm a performance artist, and part of my project is to record every word spoken in conversation with me for thirty days, as an exploration into the cacophony of the modern world? (I think I may have a grant proposal here.) Part of the project would have to include the subjects not being aware they were being recorded, or you wouldn't get honest reactions.

Plus, I have a real problem with a cop being able to tell you to stop recording a conversation you're having with him, and being able to arrest you if you don't. It's a matter of not quite trusting my government that much.

I think your hand slipped of your dick for a moment then, you condescending little fuck.You'll want to watch that kind of "rhetoric" around here.

regardless of what should be done...there was a law, he broke it...what really can you do?

But the police can tap your phones and film people with out their permission, but its not OK when we do it?

I don't see any reason for the exception to go that way, though. What if I'm a performance artist, and part of my project is to record every word spoken in conversation with me for thirty days, as an exploration into the cacophony of the modern world? (I think I may have a grant proposal here.) Part of the project would have to include the subjects not being aware they were being recorded, or you wouldn't get honest reactions.

Plus, I have a real problem with a cop being able to tell you to stop recording a conversation you're having with him, and being able to arrest you if you don't. It's a matter of not quite trusting my government that much.

well in fairness, I don't really like these kind of laws, I think I should be able to record any conversation I am part of.

That being said, there's really nothing unconstitutional about it so...what can ya do? Lobby your legislators to get it changed I suppose.

But the police can tap your phones and film people with out their permission, but its not OK when we do it?

The police can also handcuff people without their consent and throw them in a locked room, and yes, it's most certainly not OK when we do it.

The police can do a lot of things we can't do. They're the police. They don't get to do it without regulation however.

So the first and third examples are out given that there was no intent. The first one I imagine so, provided that anyone under the cameras was not informed of first.

Accidentally capturing someone's voice isn't a crime. Intentionally doing so, it would appear, is.But shows like Taxicab Confessions, for instance, would be illegal under this statute. The shows have to get consent to use the footage on air, but this law makes it a crime to film them in the first place, even if you get consent afterward.

But shows like Taxicab Confessions, for instance, would be illegal under this statute. The shows have to get consent to use the footage on air, but this law makes it a crime to film them in the first place, even if you get consent afterward.

Perhaps, I really have no idea whether retroactive consent would work, you're probably right and in that jurisdiction such shows would be illegal.

Again, I don't agree with this particular law, but there's nothing illegal about it.

regardless of what should be done...there was a law, he broke it...what really can you do? He'll probably get off light or get nothing at all because there was no malice, but the law is what it is.

The police can also handcuff people without their consent and throw them in a locked room, and yes, it's most certainly not OK when we do it.

The police can do a lot of things we can't do. They're the police. They don't get to do it without regulation however.

We're not talking about handcuffing people, we're talking about filiming them.

We're not talking about handcuffing people, we're talking about filiming them.

Yes, I know, but the argument of "the police can do it why can't I?" doesn't work. The police can do a LOT of things we can't do.

So yes, they can record you and your conversations without your consent (with the proper warrants etc), and you can not do the same. They're the police, they get special authorities.

IIRC, the police have argued in court that anything taking place in public has no expectation of privacy.

Nice double standard.

Agreed ... It is silly to expect any other wise

Agreed ... It is silly to expect any other wise

except as I said before, the rule of "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" doesn't apply here, and has no relevance.

But shows like Taxicab Confessions, for instance, would be illegal under this statute. The shows have to get consent to use the footage on air, but this law makes it a crime to film them in the first place, even if you get consent afterward.

which must mean that there are states that will NEVER have an episode of cops filmed in it.


pity that.

which must mean that there are states that will NEVER have an episode of cops filmed in it.


pity that.

a tragic loss for all humanity to be sure.

except as I said before, the rule of "no reasonable expectation of privacy in public" doesn't apply here, and has no relevance.

I did not say that the law does not cover this just that it is silly to expect privacy in public and slightly hypocritical

Yes, I know, but the argument of "the police can do it why can't I?" doesn't work. The police can do a LOT of things we can't do.

Like beating up minorities?

So yes, they can record you and your conversations without your consent (with the proper warrants etc), and you can not do the same.

Why not, what does t3h p0lic3!!!111 have to hide?

I did not say that the law does not cover this just that it is silly to expect privacy in public and slightly hypocritical

it's not truly hypocritical because it discusses default positions versus legislative ones. It has been argued that there is no DEFAULT expectation of privacy in public, but that's not to say that the law can not create one.

However I agree that as a matter of policy there should be.

Why not, what does t3h p0lic3!!!111 have to hide?

I'm not really sure what your point is, this law doesn't just extend to the police you know...

I'm not really sure what your point is, this law doesn't just extend to the police you know...

Yeah the FBI CIA anyone can tapp your phones and search your house because of NATIONAL!SECURITY

Y'all are focusing on something that doesn't have much relevance to the article in question. It's not only illegal to record police conversations - it's any conversation without the consent of all those involved. He couldn't record the policeman's conversation any more than he could record a couple chatting on a park bench.

Furthermore, name-calling is unnecessary.

awwws the piggies are pissed cos some dude recorded them hassling a civilian, national security is a bit of joke, even here in britain where we are not (as yet) living in fear of the FBI (read Gestapo) dragging us off to Guantanamo bay (read concentration camp), we jsut have to worry about MI5 who arent (yet) as bad. Besides the US government is a standing joke, its just a shame when they hurt people, cnat we all just get along folks, im sure he wasnt meaning any harm, besides, you yanks change the law all the time by amending that lovely constitution of yours, its a wonder you can see anything at all with the ammount of tipp-ex that must be on that thing. The camera dude should be fine, so long as he wasnt of any minority ethnic group, and if he was something should be done to get him released, maybe break him out while the pigs are munching on their donuts. Right, rant over.

-snip-

-snip-

What is the fucking matter with you? Why can you not debate his points (or lack thereof) without resorting to crude insults?

awwws the piggies are pissed cos some dude recorded them hassling a civilian, national security is a bit of joke, even here in britain where we are not (as yet) living in fear of the FBI (read Gestapo) dragging us off to Guantanamo bay (read concentration camp), we jsut have to worry about MI5 who arent (yet) as bad. Besides the US government is a standing joke, its just a shame when they hurt people, cnat we all just get along folks, im sure he wasnt meaning any harm, besides, you yanks change the law all the time by amending that lovely constitution of yours, its a wonder you can see anything at all with the ammount of tipp-ex that must be on that thing. The camera dude should be fine, so long as he wasnt of any minority ethnic group, and if he was something should be done to get him released, maybe break him out while the pigs are munching on their donuts. Right, rant over.

Let's try something. It's called "paying attention". I know, I know - it's a new and scary thing, but... just this once, let's give it a shot.

As wonderful as your Nazi Germany/America references are, they lack... what's the word... substance. I look around and I don't see mass executions. I don't see people living in fear of their own government. What I do see is people having an issue with the government, and being allowed to voice that dissenting opinion: those who challenge the government aren't being carted off in vans and shoved into camps, unless the government has proof that they were planning to challenge the government in an illegal and violent way.

The policeman - one of many people sworn to uphold the law - notices someone breaking a law. In this particular case, the person breaking the law is recording a conversation without the consent of all the parties involved. The fact that a policeman was involved in the conversation is coincidental. Intentionally recording a conversation without consent is illegal where this took place, which means that the recorder is a criminal in that regard. There's no need to call the police names for doing their jobs, or acting as though they have thin skin for upholding what they've sworn to uphold. The police don't make the laws: they enforce them.

So in the future, please actually focus on what's being said, and not some slopped-together rant that has little bearing on the thread in question.

So why are security camera's allowed?

Because the don't record sound?

My contribution to this topic: I would like mass surveilance in the 21st century. Not only allowing allowing recordings like this but also personal surveilance devices would be good for the police (to record them).

Yeah the FBI CIA anyone can tapp your phones and search your house because of NATIONAL!SECURITY

National security is a good idea, until we're so damn worried about it we're sacking the homes of innocents.

Crude insults are much more fun, and you are a moron.

Got suck your mother's dick you sub-human.

What's even more fun is like watching such clever people as yourself get banned by the mods.

Seriously, it's like dinner and a movie without even paying.

I know, he's an atourney - I should have called him a patronising act of copulation between himself and a close family member (probably his father).

Anyway, I do hope he kills himself accidentally in an act of autoerotic asphyxiation and a his mother discovers the body.

Neo Art's attorney-ness has nothing to do with it. It's the personal flaming that's looked down on. You might want to refresh yourself on the rules.

which must mean that there are states that will NEVER have an episode of cops filmed in it.


pity that.

My guess is that there's a bit of selective enforcement involved, which is why I don't like laws of this type.

Double RETRACTED..

edited -- NEVER MIND the friendly message--

I am 100% against Neo Art positions on this subjects.. and I sometimes I dont like his "lawyer talk"..

But you should definitely stop insulting the mother of Nazz.
This not-so-friendly advice brought you by the-Hand-of-Occean

To be fair, he was responding to Psychotic Mongooses, not me. As for my mother, she may well have a dick--I never went looking one way or the other. ;)

To be fair, he was responding to Psychotic Mongooses, not me. As for my mother, she may well have a dick--I never went looking one way or the other. ;)oh..
*cheks if Mongooses Mother has paid her weekly "Protection" prime.. oh she didnt*

*deletes ultimatum to Mr Wiggles*

carry on then Mr Wiggles :D

I am 100% against Neo Art positions on this subjects..

how can you be "against my position" when I've not really advocated any poosition other than "I don't like these kinds of laws".

I have said that this kind of law is not unconstitutional, which is not "my position" but rather a statement of fact.

if you wish to be against facts feel free, I can't stop you from being in opposition to reality, but it's rarely a smart position to take.

how can you be "against my position" when I've not really advocated any poosition other than "I don't like these kinds of laws".Aww damn you tricky Lawyer :p

I retract the other half of that post..
*Deletes the ultimatum + the part it says NeoArt is for baning videotaping*

God-dammit I had to retract twice on a roll for the same post.. must be Wednesday :D

*sobs* i gots replys! high five! provoking people is fun, i jsut hope i wanst accidentally recording it without everyones consent..... chill folks, i know lots of police officers and theyre very nice, and nothing was meant etc etc, ah well

What's even more fun is like watching such clever people as yourself get banned by the mods.

Seriously, it's like dinner and a movie without even paying.

And without the dinner. :(

I know, he's an atourney - I should have called him a patronising act of copulation between himself and a close family member (probably his father).

Anyway, I do hope he kills himself accidentally in an act of autoerotic asphyxiation and a his mother discovers the body.

see, now that would be unconstitutional.

Can we say un-con-sti-tu-tion-al? Very good, I knew we could.

And as an attorney, and a member of the ACLU I have sworn many an oath to uphold the constitution. And considering I already stated the caveat of our constitution, I can't see any reason to discuss something like this other than to continue on with your foaming at the mouth rhetoric.

Now if you want to play legal games with me, feel free, but I assure you you're way the fuck out of your league here. Come back when you have a real argument.

Now I see the reason for that massive stick up your arse - and there was me thinking it was for masturbational purposes.

Your latest post seems to have a lot of 'i don't knows' in. Are the rest of the people in your 'proffesion' this fucking inept?

I think the tinfoil hat slipped a little off, you might want to readjust.


I think your hand slipped of your dick for a moment then, you condescending little fuck.

You also said you 'don't know' several times AND reported my post to the MODS - you fucking pussy. Grow a backbone or get lost.

Crude insults are much more fun, and you are a moron.

Got suck your mother's dick you sub-human.
Based on the above comments, Mr Wiggles II has been given a 5 day forum ban.

Location Location Location.

Public transit (subways), escalators in malls, and stairwells. All public locations.

That's what I thought. If we define a democracy as a government that is accountable to its people, then we cannot criminalise recording government activity.

The Rodney King video is a good example of why police should be filmed while on duty.

Wuh?

That's a terrible example. Nothing became of that video... oh, except about six days of terrible rioting in Los Angeles.

An event that ends with the police being almost unilaterally acquitted, and with the deaths of 53 people as a result of a videotape is not a good example of why cops should be taped.

When you see Occean posting his dreadful "Location Location Location"
be aware that he is talking about "geographical" location.

In another words he is saying: "D'ont forget, this is an International Forum, thank you for your cooperation."

He is likely reminding some US poster, that the United States is not the whole World. (in this case Barringtona and NeoArt.)

US laws do not apply outside the US borders.
Just like the Laws of Ecuador do not apply in the US.

And of course that state law does not apply to the police. I have a funny feeling he taped them doing something wrong and they're just trying to cover their asses.

He is likely reminding some US poster, that the United States is not the whole World. (in this case Barringtona and NeoArt.)

US laws do not apply outside the US borders.
Just like the Laws of Ecuador do not apply in the US.

Your point against assumption makes its own assumption that either of us are from the US and are talking from a US perspective - I can't account for Neo Art but I myself am not from the US.

EDIT: Having said that, since this case took part in America, it's perfectly reasonable to talk from a US perspective anyway

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html



I think if the police are actually doing their jobs right, they shouldn't be worried about being watched. I know some people claim similar things about the illegal wiretapping, but I think that's a bit different, since it targets people with much less power then police. I think once you enter the government's employ, your right to not be monitored on your job is significantly reduced.

i understand the nuances people are bringin up about the letter of the law and recording people with out consent.
and it is the publics job to lobby the legislature to change the rules if they are unfair or arbitrary.
the debate about what is private and public content...all well argued and understood to a degree.

if i may...i think all police stops should be recorded and vidoe taped,they have a badge,the power of the state(try convincing a judge the cop is lying...never happen..cops are given the preponderance of truth in all cases)go to court and argue the cop is lying and tell me how you do...without explicit proof!
they also have the ability to kill you...legally on their say so..so in this enviroment...there has to be some semblance of restraint.you are not going to get that from a judge...they are going to weigh your testimony verse a cops..and they are going to give the cop more credibility then john q public...fact.
so if there is not some type of counter balance against abuse..it is actually creating a more dangerous enviroment for the cop...cause the old saying then comes into play...rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6
it actually protects the cops if they are playing by the rules,and protects the public from abuse.
we have the technology,why not use it,hell i like instant replay in football cause if the ref screws up...it is remedied.and either side does not get an unfair leg up on the opponent.

sorry for the long winded post,but i feel strongly about this.

i was beaten unconscious,while handcuffed,by 4 officers of the court..lol,i had a broken orbital bone from a kick to my face(last thing i remembered),a fractured cheekbone,and 4 broken ribs.
they couldnt take me to jail i was so badly beaten,i had to go directly to the hospital cause i had a thready pulse?i was handcuffed to the bed and even the doctor was fuming about my injuries,he saw my wrists all lacerated from the cuffs.i did try to struggle,try gettin whipped on by 4 men when your cuffed,your instinct is to just flee...but cuffed you cant do shit,so you struggle to get free.
long story short,if it had been on tape,i would either be a millionaire or would not have had the beating of my life.
i doubt i am the only one this happens too..i respect cops..i really do...but you hand someone authority,a gun,a badge and then say...we believe you over anyone else...wtf do you exspect to happen?
most will be good and do the right thing...but what about the minority that does not?
i was told the day of sentencing..lol...that they lost the video of the stop...and they down graded my charges from attemted murder of a cop,agg. assualt on a cop,resisting arrest with violence and a bunch more to a ticket for disordely person and a 100.00 fine?
but hey..wtf...i t was only out 15,000.00 in legal fees...glad i had it or i would be doing 10 to 20 for being poor.
great system we have...imho all stops have to be recorded,for the safety of everyone..cops included.

i think that the system tends to not want to air their dirty laundry,and that aint good for anyone..me you or the cops.

should i be allowed to do up skirts with my cellphone...no..of coarse not,but really...if a cop stops me and starts to have a bad day..i should be able to record it for my defence.
just my opinion,but i have the scars to prove it.

And of course that state law does not apply to the police. I have a funny feeling he taped them doing something wrong and they're just trying to cover their asses.

ditto


good money the video/tape was accidently destroyed.happens every fucking day.

I am not from the US.So...

where are you from?

So...

where are you from?

England though living in Asia, not that I need to provide this information, simply making the point that those who feel everything is US-centric on this forum are as much guilty of assumption as those who write that way.

England though living in Asia, not that I need to provide this information, simply making the point that those who feel everything is US-centric on this forum are as much guilty of assumption as those who write that way.

where in asia..just curious..i am to afraid to travel much...and are you an ex pat...do you miss your home country?

always curious about making a move.
i am just scared to deal with evils i am not accustomed to,and i have heard horror stories of my friends that went abroad and just cause they were american,they were targets.

maybe i will just go agoraphobic and not worry..lol

where in asia..just curious..i am to afraid to travel much...and are you an ex pat...do you miss your home country?

always curious about making a move.
i am just scared to deal with evils i am not accustomed to,and i have heard horror stories of my friends that went abroad and just cause they were american,they were targets.

maybe i will just go agoraphobic and not worry..lol

Totally off-topic :)

Left England when very young and lived all over, no fear because I don't know any better. Don't miss home because, I'm sorry to say, home is where the proverbial hat is. You can read about Third Culture Kids (TCKs) on websites though I'd avoid tckworld.com as it's a bit weird.

Sorry to hear about your beating, they're experimenting in the UK with helmet-mounted cameras, more to protect police than suspects but, as you say, works both ways.

I'm against secret surveillance of any sort however, unless an application has gone through the courts.

As wonderful as your Nazi Germany/America references are, they lack... what's the word... substance. I look around and I don't see mass executions. I don't see people living in fear of their own government.

You seriously need to look harder my friend. I mean God, where have you been for the last five years? Patriot Act, wiretapping, Gitmo? Hello?

What I do see is people having an issue with the government, and being allowed to voice that dissenting opinion: those who challenge the government aren't being carted off in vans and shoved into camps, unless the government has proof that they were planning to challenge the government in an illegal and violent way.

I think someones been drinking the koolaid to much

The policeman - one of many people sworn to uphold the law - notices someone breaking a law. In this particular case, the person breaking the law is recording a conversation without the consent of all the parties involved. The fact that a policeman was involved in the conversation is coincidental. Intentionally recording a conversation without consent is illegal where this took place, which means that the recorder is a criminal in that regard. There's no need to call the police names for doing their jobs, or acting as though they have thin skin for upholding what they've sworn to uphold. The police don't make the laws: they enforce them.

Let me guess, you're a supporter of Shrub?

So in the future, please actually focus on what's being said, and not some slopped-together rant that has little bearing on the thread in question.


Yes because Karais is the be all end all of everything and is never wrong.

No responce. How typical of Neocons, whenever you point out their lunacy they run away crying.

Sorry about that, New Tacoma - I don't log onto the forums as frequently as others, and so have just now seen your responses to my post. Unfortunately, as with the last post I responded to, there appears to be a lack of substance. I'll address what you've posted, however.

Yes, the things you mentioned exist. What does that have to do with a racist fear engine? There have been isolated cases of abuse of power - as there tend to be in any administration, not only ours - but again, that doesn't make the United States the new Nazi Germany. It's somewhat ignorant to make the leap from a government taking (admittedly zealous) action to protect its people and borders to a dictatorial regime in which dissidents are summarily executed.

As I pointed out before (and which was only responded to with what looks like a veiled drunken reference), I see people disagreeing with the government. I don't see those people being imprisoned unless they actually break the law and do something crazy. When they propose change, when they speak out against the President, they're not risking bodily harm. In fact, it's somewhat chic to attack government policy at the moment. If this were a Nazi state, I can guarantee you the dissenters would mysteriously disappear.

I'm not sure how you made your next leap, either. How does supporting policemen doing their job make me a Bush supporter?

You didn't actually post anything useful, or anything which countered anything I've said. If you disagree with me, disagree: toss some proof my way about the US being the next Nazi state. Put some meat in your responses, instead of half-witty one- or two-line responses that have no real bearing on what I've said.

Wuh?

That's a terrible example. Nothing became of that video... oh, except about six days of terrible rioting in Los Angeles.

An event that ends with the police being almost unilaterally acquitted, and with the deaths of 53 people as a result of a videotape is not a good example of why cops should be taped.

Well it brought the truth to light. If 12 idiots decide not to believe the obvious it isn't the fault of the tape. Though it didn't bring justice as it should have it is still an example of videotaping police that didn't allow a coverup.

It doesn't surprise me that this proposal is from Pennsylvania. Every time I go there, I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. There's signs everywhere telling people what they can and can't do.

Yes, the things you mentioned exist. What does that have to do with a racist fear engine? There have been isolated cases of abuse of power - as there tend to be in any administration, not only ours - but again, that doesn't make the United States the new Nazi Germany. It's somewhat ignorant to make the leap from a government taking (admittedly zealous) action to protect its people and borders to a dictatorial regime in which dissidents are summarily executed.

You Bush apologists make me sick. So its ok for the US to torture peole in Gitmo and take away your freedoms because they are trying to protect us? Next.

As I pointed out before (and which was only responded to with what looks like a veiled drunken reference),

So now your impling that I'm an alcoholic? Nice.
I see people disagreeing with the government. I don't see those people being imprisoned unless they actually break the law and do something crazy. When they propose change, when they speak out against the President, they're not risking bodily harm. In fact, it's somewhat chic to attack government policy at the moment. If this were a Nazi state, I can guarantee you the dissenters would mysteriously disappear.

No the just smear and make up lies about them, like they did to Moore.[/B]

I'm not sure how you made your next leap, either. How does supporting policemen doing their job make me a Bush supporter?

You are supporting police officers abusing their power to arrest citizens. That is disgusting.

You didn't actually post anything useful, or anything which countered anything I've said. If you disagree with me, disagree: toss some proof my way about the US being the next Nazi state. Put some meat in your responses, instead of half-witty one- or two-line responses that have no real bearing on what I've said.

How about you giving me proof that the US is some happle sunshine rainbow place where nothing bad ever happenes?

I hadn't realized that I was apologizing for Bush's behavior - while I can't see that in any of my posts, I apologize for leading you to believe that such is the case. Neither do I recall supporting torture. I do see where I mentioned incidents of abuse of power. Is referring to abuse apologizing for its existence? Please clarify. Help me to understand what you're talking about.

Never did I imply that you were an alcoholic. I assumed - however wrongly - that your Kool-Aid reference implied that I had been drinking. I did not intend that as a slight against you.

I'm reasonably sure the government didn't lead the smear campaign against Moore (assuming you're talking about Michael Moore, and not some other Moore). He did a great deal of damage to his own reputation by twisting and even falsifying information in his movies. His inability to keep an open mind, his focus on proving his point and not revealing the truth, is what got him into trouble. I see nothing wrong with that.

Again, I apologize for leading you to believe I support abuse of power. I can't see anywhere in my post that says I support it; I don't see someone being arrested for breaking the law as an abuse of power. I see that as someone who broke the law being arrested.

I never made the claim that the US is "some happle sunshine rainbow place where nothing bad ever happenes". What I said was that it is not a Nazi state. There have been earlier claims that it was. I've asked for clarification, and all I've recieved - even after specifically asking for some substance, some meat, some proof in opponents' posts - are one line responses which focus more on me than the point I'm asking about. If you want to prove your point, you actually have to provide some sort of information that backs up what you say.

Hm. It's unfortunate that there are no new posts: I think I bring up some valid points.

Hm. It's unfortunate that there are no new posts: I think I bring up some valid points.hmm

can you answer a yes or no question?

should it be illegal to tape the police Yes or No?

hmm

can you answer a yes or no question?

should it be illegal to tape the police Yes or No?

It should be legal to tape the police, however it should still be illegal to use the tape as a method of blackmail. It would not only help to cut down on corrupt practises but show when a policeperson is not at fault.

My 2% of a standard currency unit.

hmm

can you answer a yes or no question?

should it be illegal to tape the police Yes or No?

Yes, I can answer a 'yes' or 'no' question. And, in the case provided in the first post, yes - I think it should have been illegal to tape the police officer, for the same reason it would be illegal if he had taped someone who wasn't an enforcer of the law.

Really, I was trying to draw New Tacoma back into the conversation, but I suspect he's faded back into the background again.

Many police cars are equiped with cameras whose footage is often used as evidence. Shouldn't citizens also be able to gather evidence in the interest of a fair trial?

I hadn't realized that I was apologizing for Bush's behavior - while I can't see that in any of my posts, I apologize for leading you to believe that such is the case. Neither do I recall supporting torture. I do see where I mentioned incidents of abuse of power. Is referring to abuse apologizing for its existence? Please clarify. Help me to understand what you're talking about.

Ok, here is where you sound like your condoning Shrub's actions:

There have been isolated cases of abuse of power - as there tend to be in any administration, not only ours - but again, that doesn't make the United States the new Nazi Germany. It's somewhat ignorant to make the leap from a government taking (admittedly zealous) action to protect its people and borders to a dictatorial regime in which dissidents are summarily executed.


So, in a nutshell, anyone who implies that the goverment is not as benine as one might assume is 'ignorant'?

Never did I imply that you were an alcoholic. I assumed - however wrongly - that your Kool-Aid reference implied that I had been drinking. I did not intend that as a slight against you.

Kool aid drinker is someone who is all 'bush is teh gratest prez eva!!!!!' and think that he can do no wrong.

I'm reasonably sure the government didn't lead the smear campaign against Moore (assuming you're talking about Michael Moore, and not some other Moore). He did a great deal of damage to his own reputation by twisting and even falsifying information in his movies. His inability to keep an open mind, his focus on proving his point and not revealing the truth, is what got him into trouble. I see nothing wrong with that.

Slander is fun.

Again, I apologize for leading you to believe I support abuse of power. I can't see anywhere in my post that says I support it; I don't see someone being arrested for breaking the law as an abuse of power. I see that as someone who broke the law being arrested.

How is filming the police breaking the law? The police can film us why not us them?

I never made the claim that the US is "some happle sunshine rainbow place where nothing bad ever happens'. What I said was that it is not a Nazi state. There have been earlier claims that it was. I've asked for clarification, and all I've recieved - even after specifically asking for some substance, some meat, some proof in opponents' posts - are one line responses which focus more on me than the point I'm asking about. If you want to prove your point, you actually have to provide some sort of information that backs up what you say.

http://etherzone.com/2006/meek112906.shtml


And
A Soldier lifts lid on Camp Delta

For the first time, an army insider blows the whistle on human rights abuses at Guantánamo

Paul Harris in New York
Sunday May 8, 2005
The Observer

An American soldier has revealed shocking new details of abuse and sexual torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay in the first high-profile whistleblowing account to emerge from inside the top-secret base.
Erik Saar, an Arabic speaker who was a translator in interrogation sessions, has produced a searing first-hand account of working at Guantánamo. It will prove a damaging blow to a White House still struggling to recover from the abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview, Saar told The Observer that prisoners were physically assaulted by 'snatch squads' and subjected to sexual interrogation techniques and that the Geneva Conventions were deliberately ignored by the US military.

He also said that soldiers staged fake interrogations to impress visiting administration and military officials. Saar believes that the great majority of prisoners at Guantánamo have no terrorist links and little worthwhile intelligence information has emerged from the base despite its prominent role in America's war on terror.

Saar paints a picture of a base where interrogations of often innocent prisoners have spiralled out of control, doing massive damage to America's image in the Muslim world.

Saar said events at Guantánamo were a disaster for US foreign policy. 'We are trying to promote democracy worldwide. I don't see how you can do that and run a place like Guantánamo Bay. This is now a rallying cry to the Muslim world,' he said.

Why should it be illegal to video tape someone in public doing something that is in plain sight of everyone around?

And how can you blackmail an officer by video taping him? He's an officer. If he's already doing something (lewd, illegal or other misconduct) that makes blackmail even possible, then people should know about it!

A changing room is private. Why else even have them?

Catching upskirts with a camera in a bag is illegal, because the upskirt is a private area.

Why should it be illegal to video tape someone in public doing something that is in plain sight of everyone around?

And how can you blackmail an officer by video taping him? He's an officer. If he's already doing something (lewd, illegal or other misconduct) that makes blackmail even possible, then people should know about it!

A changing room is private. Why else even have them?

Catching upskirts with a camera in a bag is illegal, because the upskirt is a private area.

You can blackmail an officer by demanding money for exposure
That SHOULD be still illegal

Oy.

As I have said - and you quoted me as saying - yes, there have been abuses of power. They're nowhere near, however, the atrocities performed by Nazi Germany. My argument is that America is not on the same level as Nazi Germany. I have never claimed that America is perfect, nor have I claimed that mistakes have not been made. What I have pointed out is that whatever the US has done, it is not on the level of the Nazis. That's the argument: The US does not equal Nazi Germany. And until you show me the ethnic cleansing of some six million people, "medical" experiments performed on people not of what has been declared a master race, and the snatching of any political protestors off the street, I'm going to maintain my position that the United States is not on the level of Nazi Germany.

You might find it interesting to note that I have yet to actually go Bush-crazy in this thread - or on these boards, or anywhere at all, really. I'm not a rabid Bush supporter. I have never claimed that he has done no wrong. Kindly keep that in mind.

I doubt slander is fun, but even if it were the case against Moore isn't such. See, it has to be untrue to be considered slander.

In the instance provided above, filming the policeman was illegal because the person recording the conversation did not have the consent of all the parties involved. At least, that's what the article provided in the first post says. Going off the information provided - you know, the article saying "this man broke the law, here's the law, here's how he broke it" - I feel right in assuming - again, based off being outright told such is true - that he broke the law, and the policeman was within his rights to arrest him.

"The police can film us why not us them?"

The police can also examine a crime scene and forbid people to enter it until they've finished their investigation. Law enforcement officials have certain duties which require the use of these things. Normal people can't intentionally record other peoples' conversations because it's eavesdropping.

In regards to the first link - according to your article, there may or may not be camps being built in order to house people during a "national disaster or immigration crisis." After that is a great deal of conjecture, but no actual proof that we're starting to round people up and stuff them into camps. One man's opinion about the potential for abuse does not a Nazi state make. And, judging from other articles the author of that link has posted (among other things), I somehow don't know if I should accept all his ramblings about possibilities as fact, as proof that these are death camps.

As for the other article, you will find that I've never denied that there have been incidents which should never have happened. However, there's something in the article which I think is very important: "He also said that soldiers staged fake interrogations to impress visiting administration and military officials." If this were widespread and infecting upper levels of the administration, why would they need to hide it? Couldn't they falsify the documents and suchlike, and show that to the American people? Your proof seems to support my view more than it supports yours.

Now, do you have anything else?

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/06/brian_d_kelly_didnt_think.html



I think if the police are actually doing their jobs right, they shouldn't be worried about being watched. I know some people claim similar things about the illegal wiretapping, but I think that's a bit different, since it targets people with much less power then police. I think once you enter the government's employ, your right to not be monitored on your job is significantly reduced.

I don't think I posted in this thread yet (although I could be wrong), but IMO it should be illegal to record any conversations that you're not part of, no matter who the participants are.

Oy.

As I have said - and you quoted me as saying - yes, there have been abuses of power. They're nowhere near, however, the atrocities performed by Nazi Germany. My argument is that America is not on the same level as Nazi Germany. I have never claimed that America is perfect, nor have I claimed that mistakes have not been made. What I have pointed out is that whatever the US has done, it is not on the level of the Nazis. That's the argument: The US does not equal Nazi Germany. And until you show me the ethnic cleansing of some six million people, "medical" experiments performed on people not of what has been declared a master race, and the snatching of any political protestors off the street, I'm going to maintain my position that the United States is not on the level of Nazi Germany.

And I am going to maintain my position that you are delusional.

You might find it interesting to note that I have yet to actually go Bush-crazy in this thread - or on these boards, or anywhere at all, really. I'm not a rabid Bush supporter. I have never claimed that he has done no wrong. Kindly keep that in mind.

No, you just like to think he just some well-meaning bumbling buffoon.

I doubt slander is fun, but even if it were the case against Moore isn't such. See, it has to be untrue to be considered slander.

Show me proof that he has falsified infomation, then.

In the instance provided above, filming the policeman was illegal because the person recording the conversation did not have the consent of all the parties involved.

So, if I put a camera in my house and a robber comes in. The robber can sue me for filming him with out his consent.


At least, that's what the article provided in the first post says. Going off the information provided - you know, the article saying "this man broke the law, here's the law, here's how he broke it" - I feel right in assuming - again, based off being outright told such is true - that he broke the law, and the policeman was within his rights to arrest him.

You unwaivering support for your goose-stepping police force is touching. But, unfortunatly for you its not that clear cut.

"The police can film us why not us them?"

The police can also examine a crime scene and forbid people to enter it until they've finished their investigation. Law enforcement officials have certain duties which require the use of these things. Normal people can't intentionally record other peoples' conversations because it's eavesdropping.

Tell that to the FBI.

In regards to the first link - according to your article, there may or may not be camps being built in order to house people during a "national disaster or immigration crisis." After that is a great deal of conjecture, but no actual proof that we're starting to round people up and stuff them into camps. One man's opinion about the potential for abuse does not a Nazi state make. And, judging from other articles the author of that link has posted (among other things), I somehow don't know if I should accept all his ramblings about possibilities as fact, as proof that these are death camps.

Ah, when in doubt, use personal attacks to prove your point.

As for the other article, you will find that I've never denied that there have been incidents which should never have happened. However, there's something in the article which I think is very important: "He also said that soldiers staged fake interrogations to impress visiting administration and military officials." If this were widespread and infecting upper levels of the administration, why would they need to hide it? Couldn't they falsify the documents and suchlike, and show that to the American people? Your proof seems to support my view more than it supports yours.

Now, do you have anything else?

I have loads but you will just accuse me of falsifing evidence. Goodbye my little sheep, continue to think the grass is greener on the other side even as they are sending you to the slaughter house.

No replies eh? Looks like I win.:)

Should it be illegal to tape the police?

No.

That was easy!

I Order You To Respond Karais

No.

That was easy!

Yes they should.

That was easier!

Yes they should.

That was easier!


Why do you hate America?

... Not if they're in public space as the per current situation.

However, Yes if they're in the showers (and no, I don't need to see your manly hairy donut crumbed chest, officer).

Why do you hate America?

Because you have two continents!

... Not if they're in public space as the per current situation.

However, Yes if they're in the showers (and no, I don't need to see your manly hairy donut crumbed chest, officer).

Wouldn't not being on shift make their position a non-public situation then?

Because you have two continents!

Best answer i've ever heard. :)

Wouldn't not being on shift make their position a non-public situation then?

Your negatives obfuscates me,.... damn you Soleichunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

Your negatives obfuscates me,.... damn you Soleichunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

Sorry to perplex you Defacer-Obscure ;) .

Clarification: I meant that the police could be regarded as public space/entity during their workshift. When they finish that shift they usually go back into private space/entity role.

Police are alredy taped by Dashboard Cameras what's the big deal if they are videotaped by passerbuys?