is there any way to check if a LEO is really on duty even though he is not in uniform

[level.eleven]

I thought I understood the law in Indiana. Maybe not. But how is it a "lawful order" to tell someone they cannot use a video camera?

Maybe you meant to say "unlawful order". That would make more sense. You do not need permission to audio or video a LEO or anyone else in Indiana.

Quit drinking that Coke! *takes sip* You're coming with me pal.

See, its fun to make up law on the fly!

 

[45calibre]

I thought I understood the law in Indiana. Maybe not. But how is it a "lawful order" to tell someone they cannot use a video camera?

Maybe you meant to say "unlawful order". That would make more sense. You do not need permission to audio or video a LEO or anyone else in Indiana.

If they were stopped in TX and I were dispatched, it would be failure to ID and/or disregarding a lawful order (to turn off camera). However it shouldn't really be a problem for the officers as they should have their own camera's on and body mic. Which, if it were ever to go to court, is viewable by the public under freedom of information act. Again, all in the articulation.

is that only in texas?

 

[jbombelli]

we dont know what these guys were doing. You guys are ASSuming that they were not doing anything to disturb the peace. Its a video that they put out that makes them look favorable.

I'm sure if they were disturbing the peace, they'd have been arrested and charged with disturbing the peace on multiple occasions, and their video would have been confiscated, instead of those cops eventually giving up and walking away, especially after refusing to do things like turn off their cameras.

So it's safe to assume they were NOT disturbing the peace. They were only disturbing those police officers sense of authority and power.

 

[christman]

"is there any way to check if a LEO is really on duty even though he is not in uniform"

Best and quickest way to find out is a solid right hook. Followed by a groin judo-halio-duken chop. Let me know how it works out!

 

[IndyMonkey]

I'm sure if they were disturbing the peace, they'd have been arrested and charged with disturbing the peace on multiple occasions, and their video would have been confiscated, instead of those cops eventually giving up and walking away, especially after refusing to do things like turn off their cameras.

So it's safe to assume they were NOT disturbing the peace. They were only disturbing those police officers sense of authority and power.

I bet you make a great arm chair quarter back.

It doesnt make sense that the cops just stopped two random people to violate there rights. They HAD to be doing something to catch the attention of the officers.

 

[jbombelli]

I bet you make a great arm chair quarter back.

It doesnt make sense that the cops just stopped two random people to violate there rights. They HAD to be doing something to catch the attention of the officers.

Like walking along with protest signs with long hippie hair and beards? Drawing attention to their stupid message?

 

[christman]

Like walking along with protest signs with long hippie hair and beards? Drawing attention to their stupid message?

Sounds like a good enough reason to me. No? Hippies.....

 

[level.eleven]

is that only in texas?

Actually, its only in Illinois. They are the only state to have a written law regarding the use of lie detectors..err, I mean cameras, when recoding an enforcer.

Now, what these enforcement agencies like to do is twist around wiretapping laws and the such to snake their way out of having the lie detector video released. This is quite the issue right now in Mass. The motorcyclist that had a helmet cam when the rogue agent, out of costume, drew down on a mundane is making quite the mockery of the justice system. Remember, he had his house invaded by the enforcers and his computer stolen. Scary stuff when the enforcers feel so threaten they have to invade a home and steal property.

Look up the trial of Anthony Graber.

Motorcyclist jailed for 26 hours for videotaping gun-wielding cop | Photography is Not a Crime

 

[jbombelli]

Sounds like a good enough reason to me. No? Hippies.....

It was obviously a good enough reason for those cops.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Like walking along with protest signs with long hippie hair and beards? Drawing attention to their stupid message?

That doesnt make sense. Savage eagle can walk around downtown Indy with an AR and a cop doesnt bother him but these two goof balls cant walk around with signs?

 

[level.eleven]

I bet you make a great arm chair quarter back.

It doesnt make sense that the cops just stopped two random people to violate there rights. They HAD to be doing something to catch the attention of the officers.

Seriously? Look up "stop and frisk" and "knock and talk". Its an easy way to generate $$$.

Pair that with predictive software like CompStat and you have yourself...well, a police state.

Cops? rising use of ?stop-and-frisk? questioned - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat

 

[jbombelli]

That doesnt make sense. Savage eagle can walk around downtown Indy with an AR and a cop doesnt bother him but these two goof balls cant walk around with signs?

That's because it DOESN'T make sense, until you realize that SOME cops are nothing more than a-holes with badges on a power trip. And I'd bet that if there were 25 of those guys, instead of just two, every one of those instances would have gone differently.


edited: I also didn't see any video from downtown Indianapolis. Maybe the cops in Indy are better than that.

 

[christman]

The only issue I have with the video is that it is one sided. You do not get the officer's perspective on it. Rather ,just snippets of people making public statements to get a rise out of others for their own cause. How do we know that in some of those cases the officer wasn't dispatched because of a public complaint? A flurry of PC could erupt from just how a caller explains the situation they want investigated. Which "could" afford the officer to give a lawful order to produce id if a potential crime was reported or suspected. If ignored, at least in Indiana the subject could spend a day in jail as a John Doe until his identity could be verified so to make sure any warrants have not been issued prior to the original PC dispatch. (Whether it was true or not.)

 

[UncleMike]

Seriously? Look up "stop and frisk" and "knock and talk". Its an easy way to generate $$$.

Pair that with predictive software like CompStat and you have yourself...well, a police state.

Cops? rising use of ?stop-and-frisk? questioned - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

CompStat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you sh*tting me???
You take the crap that MSNBC spews out as fact???
If that's where you get your news it's no wonder you don't know jack sh*t about Police work.
Mike

 

[jbombelli]

The only issue I have with the video is that it is one sided. You do not get the officer's perspective on it. Rather ,just snippets of people making public statements to get a rise out of others for their own cause. How do we know that in some of those cases the officer wasn't dispatched because of a public complaint? A flurry of PC could erupt from just how a caller explains the situation they want investigated. Which "could" afford the officer to give a lawful order to produce id if a potential crime was reported. (Whether it was true or not.)

Sure. But then why would they give up and leave when that ID wasn't produced?

 

[IndyMonkey]

Seriously? Look up "stop and frisk" and "knock and talk". Its an easy way to generate $$$.

Pair that with predictive software like CompStat and you have yourself...well, a police state.

Cops? rising use of ?stop-and-frisk? questioned - Crime & courts- msnbc.com

CompStat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so should the cops sit in an office and only come out where they get a call from your mom after she has been assaulted?

 

[IndyMonkey]

Sure. But then why would they give up and leave when that ID wasn't produced?

Because the cops figure out its a couple of douche bags that were not loved enough by daddy and they are looking for attention.

 

[jbombelli]

Because the cops figure out its a couple of douche bags that were not loved enough by daddy and they are looking for attention.

The cop in Effingham didn't have any problem making that determination without being a jerk about it. He wasn't demanding they RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAH! Was he? He didn't walk up and shove their camera and bark orders that they turn it off over and over, and demand ID? Did he?

 

[IndyMonkey]

The cop in Effingham didn't have any problem making that determination without being a jerk about it. He wasn't demanding they RESPECT HIS AUTHORITAH! Was he? He didn't walk up and shove their camera and bark orders that they turn it off over and over, and demand ID? Did he?

You have issues with people of authority dont you?

 

[christman]

Sure. But then why would they give up and leave when that ID wasn't produced?

You didn't see them "give up" and leave in all cases. Which is why I said in some cases in my earlier post. Instead, we just have edited video of different parts of the confrontation. The missing parts could have included things the video maker did not want his audience to view (Like obeying the officer, recieving a ticket, waiting to be ran for warrants, or ordered to cease by a supervisor on duty.) as it would not have made for good shock value. Not saying the above is what happened. I just don't like video's that contest a public figures job without both sides of the story. It just becomes hype without both sides or at the least, unedited tape.