More absurdity...

http://www.infowars.com/cops-being-t...could-be-guns/

Apparently, if you want to record an officer doing their job, you may be asked to hand over your deadly weapon... lol

Problems I see are
A) its as much a deadly weapon as my belt, do you want that too?
B) Unless I'm implicated or suspected of a crime, I'm legally permitted to keep a weapon. So if I have a knife on me and I'm just a bystander, they can't seize my weapon (much like the video from the law student demanding the return of his gun since he was not a suspect in any crime).

I've heard several news reports in the past of people being prosecuted for recording interactions with police. Just about every other professional has quality control measures - they have to prove their competence (well, teachers - there's some controversy there). I have to pass the Committee for the Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities once every one to three years (according to how well I do). Other groups have other quality control measures. Police are dangerous creatures if they want to be, or if they just don't know what they're doing. They should have to be able to ask to measure up to someone other than their fellow police (their fellow police can be and has been in the past "in it" with them.)

Funny how they can have dash cams that record audio and video 24/7 but we can be prosecuted if we record THEM engaged in wrongdoing, isn't it?

It's also funny how they can keep evidence they obtain against us and confiscate evidence we obtain against them, isn't it?

The reason we are approaching a police state is that lawmakers are AFRAID :sweatdrop: to vote against the police lobby, and re-election is not the only thing they fear. :gagged:

A little of that, yes, but also, they're playing each other's games. For instance, I was taught in Criminal Justice that the reason drunk driver laws are so weak is that politicians drink and drive and they know that stronger laws may come back and bite them in their rears. Politicians have a certain amount of "political immunity" and I'm sure they like that.

(approaching a police state?)

Unfortunately, some a@#hats in I believe Russia made cellphone-disguised .22lr pistols, and this presents a pretense for concern, such that any of the several billion mobile phones on earth could be one of the - I'm going to say couple thousand at most - incredibly unconvincingly disguised weapons.

As far as I'm concerned, the police at large, unless engaged in sensitive undercover work, could theoretically be less concerned about video or audio of their conduct ending up on youtube, or as evidence in a criminal defense, or the news if they merely conducted themselves better. You know, like all the good cops do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken

Funny how they can have dash cams that record audio and video 24/7 but we can be prosecuted if we record THEM engaged in wrongdoing, isn't it?

It's also funny how they can keep evidence they obtain against us and confiscate evidence we obtain against them, isn't it?

The reason we are approaching a police state is that lawmakers are AFRAID :sweatdrop: to vote against the police lobby, and re-election is not the only thing they fear. :gagged:

---

Funny how often their dash-cams aren't recording, after the fact, when it suits the prosecution (or occasionally, their own defense), relative to how often they are when it suits their duty.

Just watching the video, the first problem is that the first statement is about it being a possible weapon. NOT that they are concerned about any crime taking place or possibly taking place. So even it was a gun, without some sort of criminal activity, what right do they even have to ask for anything you may have. I will definitely be researching my state and local laws more thoroughly. If the person recording is a person of interest in a crime/potential crime, that should be the first thing out of the cops mouth, not give me your phone.

I often have a "weapon" on me. I'm a carpenter and often forget my utility knife in one my utility pockets of my carpenter jeans (you know, the little pockets on the side of the leg). I often have a normal knife in those pockets as well and I have a small pocket knife (just a little dull blade, nail cleaner/file, and tweezers) on my key chain. So I have at least one "weapon" on me all the time. So if I'm just sitting there, they think they can have those items too just cause they say so? This is especially true if I'm a bystander, and not involved directly other than being a witness who happens to be recording whats going on.

I was under the impression that a federal appeals court in Massachusetts had recently ruled it was not illegal to record a peace officer while he or she was on duty. I don't know that I'd care to press my luck for something this trivial though. Pick your battles.

It already wasn't illegal when they started throwing copwatchers, bystanders and ustreamers in jail in the first place. It din't stop some departmets doing it.

The only good thing though are phones are getting better and better at instant uploads, so that you can record directly to websites hopefully very soon. Or at least record to remove able data storage and remove the data storage before handing the phone over :)

they do real-time streaming if you want them to.

Courts give great deference to police training procedures. It's well past time that Courts apply some common sense when evaluating this "training" and well past time Courts order prosecutions of officers who are clearly manufacturing self-serving reasons for making arrests and violating Constitutional rights.

I've tried cases and argued motions where it was 100% obvious and PROVEN to everyone present that officers had committed wholesale bold-face perjury and their actions were disregarded by the court and the prosecutors. In fact, the officers should have been fired and prosecuted.

Example 1: Hearing on my motion to suppress: Police search an area well beyond the scope of the search warrant. Four officers, including a lieutenant, all testify that none of the officers even entered that locked portion of the building. Officer #5, who arrived late, not only testified that the officers did, in fact, enter that area, he also described the area to a "T" including the specific location and closet where an officer and the lieutenant found 8 oz. of cocaine. In closing, I argued that the first four officers "lied through their teeth." I won the motion, but the judge protected the officers by saying that they were "merely confused" when they testified.

Example 2: Trial: Two officers described in precise detail how they found my client passed out over the steering wheel of her car, with the motor running, the car in drive, and her foot on the brake. They each described their own heroic actions and the speed in which they opened the door and pulled the gear shift into park, preventing the car from speeding down the road and potentially killing thousands of innocents. They would have probably gotten awards for bravery if I hadn't proven that the car had a manual 5-speed stick transmission. Again, the judge covered their azzes.

The system really sucks sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canid

Unfortunately, some a@#hats in I believe Russia made cellphone-disguised .22lr pistols, and this presents a pretense for concern...

---

We have also seen shoe-bombers and underwear-bombers. Should that give then the pretext to make witnesses take off their shoes and strip off their underwear?

I'm not speaking for the appropriateness of it, I'm stating that should they think it'll fly, they'll try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canid

I'm not speaking for the appropriateness of it, I'm stating that should they think it'll fly, they'll try it.

---

I understood that to be exactly what you meant.

Oh good. I was afraid I was coming off hard to read on this issue :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by canid

Oh good. I was afraid I was coming off hard to read on this issue :P

---

Nope. Clear as a bell. :thumbup1:

Hey, I'm for the underwear thingie. Me first!

"I was under the impression that a federal appeals court in Massachusetts had recently ruled it was not illegal to record a peace officer while he or she was on duty. I don't know that I'd care to press my luck for something this trivial though. Pick your battles. "

I could definitely be behind in my current affairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WolfVanZandt

"I was under the impression that a federal appeals court in Massachusetts had recently ruled it was not illegal to record a peace officer while he or she was on duty. I don't know that I'd care to press my luck for something this trivial though. Pick your battles. "

I could definitely be behind in my current affairs.

---

You are correct.

http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/bbc/pdf/...fe655F3d78.pdf