I should'a known that was a dead giveawayThat be Trucker talk.
No self respecting LEO would put the word "big" in front of 10-4.
I should'a known that was a dead giveawayThat be Trucker talk.
No self respecting LEO would put the word "big" in front of 10-4.
I don't understand the "Don't film me" attitude. When the Squad Car dash cams first came out some people, LEO's and non LEO's, balked at the idea of being filmed during a traffic stop.
Hell, I always considered it insurance that someone couldn't try to stick me with a false "abuse" claim.
Today I simply presume that we are "on camera" whenever we step outside and act accordingly.
It keeps officers on their toes (good for that occasion when bad cops are around and is an extra incentive for even the law-abiding ones to double-check their plan of action) and serves to keep them safe at the same time. Win-win situation for everyone. Better yet, it doesn't violate any Constitutional rights!
I don't understand the "Don't film me" attitude. When the Squad Car dash cams first came out some people, LEO's and non LEO's, balked at the idea of being filmed during a traffic stop.
Hell, I always considered it insurance that someone couldn't try to stick me with a false "abuse" claim.
Today I simply presume that we are "on camera" whenever we step outside and act accordingly.
that's a big 10-4
Is that official cop lingo or just regular trucker type?
That be Trucker talk.
No self respecting LEO would put the word "big" in front of 10-4.
It needs to have "good buddy" at the end to be some real hardcore trucker lingo.I should'a known that was a dead giveaway
This.
Why any LEO wouldn't want every. single. citizen encounter on camera with audio is beyond my comprehension.
Duh. It adds 5 pounds.
Now were getting into a whole nother ball game there.It needs to have "good buddy" at the end to be some real hardcore trucker lingo.
I think he ate his partner.I thought it adds 10 pounds?
Anyway, how many cameras to you think were on this guy?
In NY only one party consent is required to record. You are legally allowed to record anyone, anywhere, at anytime, so long as the production is not for profit. That's why they had to charge her with "obstruction of government a55hattery" or whatever the trumped up nonsense was.
Boy there seems to be alot of this going on lately. I think they even have a new division dedicated to that. It's called the Dept.of Government Asshattery
I thought it adds 10 pounds?
Anyway, how many cameras to you think were on this guy?
Send me a self addressed stamped envelope and i'll send you a quarter.I own the domain name governmentasshattery.com. You guys both owe me a quarter.
In this situations though, from the article,it looks like she was arrested because he "felt unsafe" and not for the actual filming. Supposedly he attributes this "unsafe feeling" to things she said prior to the filming that indicated she was "anti-police".
So, in short he didn't arrest her because she was "filming him" but instead is trying to make it an "officer safety" thing, probably because he knows he can't arrest them for taking photos or video taping him. For pepole who say that there needs to be consent by the police, Maryland recently tried that by charging somebody under their wiretapping laws and it was thrown out of their own state court with the judge making some pretty direct statements regarding public officials, ie police, and how they do not have a right to privacy while performing their duties. It would be surprising if other state courts did not follow with the same reasoning.
He is screwed. He will probably be reprimanded and if she sues she will offered a settlement. I would be surprised if the PPA and the ACLU don't jump all over this one.
Edit: Just read another article that says the National Press Photographers Association is getting involved ( Arrest of woman taping police sparks controversy | Democrat and Chronicle | democratandchronicle.com ).
I'm going to be "that guy" and explain the flip side of the coin. Videotaping officers is perfectly fine in most cases. However, if it can be articulated that a person is a possibly a threat, or someone that maybe, it's best to listen to the officers. It appears the officers are enacting an arrest, and that there are multiple people in the vehicle. On officer has his back turned to the photographer. In the video, the photographer states that the people stopped, and guy in cuffs, are her friends. That's certainly something to take note of during this situation. I don't want the "friend" of somebody being arrested standing behind me, no way, no how. The officer's request isn't unreasonable.
Is she there to push buttons? Yes. Does your property allow you free reign of control when it is in proximity of a police action? I'd say no. Let say this was a foot pursuit, and the guy was tackled on her lawn, is she (b/c it's her property) allowed to exit her home and stand over the officers while they struggle with police b/c she owns the property? This woman was asked several times to go inside, and given a reason for be asked to do so. I think it will be a hard arrest to overturn.
So long as I am not interfering with the officer's job (getting between him and the person he's trying to arrest etc) he has no grounds to force me to move, much less arrest me for not doing so. Would I respond to his request? Maybe, but that would be my decision and made as I see fit, not merely because the officer can threaten me with the possibility of arrest.