The police have to stop and talk to him. On the slight chance that there is some credence to the call and they don't talk to him, who is liable then.
- Merg
Cops can just take a quick look and realize there is no problem and not bother an innocent man. Oh wait, he's black, that automatically makes him "suspicous".
Or they can listen to racists that get scared of all black men, and go harass them. I guess you clearly you are OK with this.
The police have to stop and talk to him. On the slight chance that there is some credence to the call and they don't talk to him, who is liable then.
- Merg
Then say "sorry to bother you sir", and leave him alone. You don't keep him there asking more stupid questions. Unless you like harassing black men...do you?
But as you and the people in the clip show, racism is alive and well. I bet a white male would not have been stopped, let alone asked so many questions.
Once again, where is your evidence to back up your lie about increasing crime? You seem to ignore all these facts you don't want to admit, hoping they will go away.
And you didn't comment on the 13 years of no police prosecution in Albuquerque. Guess you don't want to admit the DA was in bed with the cops and refused to prosecute. Unless you want to claim that a major city PD never did anything wrong in 13 years.
And no comment on the body cams dropping use of force by 60% I would think you would be all for that. No comment on that either?
And when is the last time we heard about police brutality/abuse from a fellow cop? Have you seen any threads here in the past year or in the news that came about from cops reporting criminal activity? I don't recall any, I would think it would make the news. No comment on that either?
For a cop expert, you sure don't want to comment on a lot of things? Why?
actually lower courts and the supreme court has said the Police have no expectation of privacy when they are dealing with the public.....The rulings were also based on the ability of other people to be able to record a police officer without their consent. It does not mean that the police have NO expectation of privacy. Are you saying that if a cop goes in to use a public restroom that a citizen can just start filming them in there?
I agree that people should be able to record the police without issue as long as they don't interfere with the performance of the officer's duties.
- Merg
actually lower courts and the supreme court has said the Police have no expectation of privacy when they are dealing with the public.....
You just will not admit that since the police are public servants when dealing with the public they have NO expectation of privacy!!
They have no expectation when DEALING with the public. Yes, I agree with that (and that is what the courts have said).
That does not mean that they have NO expectation of privacy.
You think that means they can't use the crapper in private?
- Merg
Smile for the camera, coppers the US Supreme Court has decided to let stand a lesser ruling that allows citizens in the state of Illinois to record police officers performing their official duties.
Try again...
http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-illinois-police-653/
The case that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear by not granting certiorari was only generally related to the public recording the police in public. That case basically made it the law of the land that anyone can record the police in public. Show me where in the Illinois Supreme Court decision that overturned the eavesdropping law where it says that police have absolutely no expectation of privacy.
In fact, that case had nothing to do specifically with the police. It was specifically related to whether or not the recording of somebody else is legal or not without their knowledge. But by striking down that law, it opened things up that anybody in public can be recorded at any time by anybody else.
- Merg
So what you're saying is that you can't show me where in that decision it says the police have no expectation of privacy, is that correct?
And where exactly did I change the argument so that I became a strawman?
- Merg
I just like watching the lil guy dance
The cop stops and asks some basic questions and explains why he was there. Once he determined the guy was a non-issue, the stop was over.
I'll admit, my statements about crime rates was off. Maybe I fell victim to how the media loves to show us the negatives in the world and always has to promote the bad. With as much negativity as the news promotes, I guess I figured that crimes were on the uprise. It's funny how the media can make you believe something.
I've said before that I don't have issues with body cams on cops. I have raised questions about having them run non-stop though.
I'll admit that you don't see cases of that often. While I agree that transparency is always good in Government, it's hard for the government to admit to a black eye. While I'm not saying that they sweep everything under the rug, I will say that many cases are resolved without being made public to avoid that stigma.
Actually his points are dead on and he is not being a strawman (I don't think you really understand the term as you play the part here all the time).
The courts have stated a police office has no expectation of privacy when dealing with the public in a public type situation. They have stated that officer has an expectation of privacy in places like the restroom, if they were on a gurney in the ER/hospital, in their homes/on their property, etc.
Are you asking that the courts allow us to record police 24/7 in any situation? I bet you'd love that, but never pull it off.
Also the key thing many clowns are missing here is 9 times out of 10, these 'video' recordings are including AUDIO. Audio trumps the whole deal and does fall under strict laws some requiring consent to be given.
Most of those crying about their devices claiming they were only video taping legally, were illegally recording audio and video.
No he didn't. And he even added in a frivolous "there have been robberies". Nice racial profiling.
Again, for someone who always defends the police, and can quote at will all these court cases that ruled for the police, you don't know this? Really?
So you know all those court cases, but believe the news for how crime is. Wow. Talk about willfull ingnorance on your part. What else do you believe from news entworks? That cops don't lie? That abuse isn't a problem.
That is just amazing the way you will just accept pro-cop statements at face value, but look up court cases when something is anti-cop. Really says a lot about your bias.
Ah yes, the old...I really like them, but I worry about filming in the restroom. Riiiight. Man, we got shifting goalposts, strawmen galore, and willful ignorance all mixed in. That's awesome.
Great way to claim you like it when you don't.
So in other words, you haven't seen any examples either. Kind of shoots your whole theory of cops doing the right thing down doesn't it? Or that your idea that they do get punished?
Cops don't rat out other cops, so all sorts of abuse is covered up. But that isn't a problem apparently because you know it's doesn't happen much and isn't widespread. Did you learn that from the media as well, just like the rising crime rates you believed?
When you outright make up things, why should anyone believe you?
Please provide evidence of this.
Jesus, you know you are like a parrot on this and not everyone has the time to do this kind of research for things that are matter of fact / common legal knowledge.
It's like when I have talked science or even math and people say prove it. A lot of deep science things are not available easily online without a paid subscription.
Hell, even simple news stories become unavailable online. You have to request a copy and pay a fee with the media outlet.
There is a big reason many dedicated surveillance cameras don't offer even audio on-board, but their multi-function counterparts do. Video in public is pretty acceptable, but audio is not in many places/situations.
Let's just focus on the popular Nanny cam debate and someone claiming what happens in their home by someone that is employed should be public:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/babysitternanny-camera-legality.html
Audio is a big no-no is many places even for public servants depending on the court you land in.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...ide/legal-limits-recording-conduct-and-conver
Also a big trump card with seizure of a device is if the officer can state he is seizing that device because he believe you have recording of a crime in progress, then courts many times have allowed that. They cannot delete/destroy the device though.
Fourth amendment is also misunderstood as well. Many still assume a cop can't search a vehicle if he sees something illegal inside it. That even if they think you were involved in a crime, they cannot detain / search you. That you do not have to provide your name/ID while driving a car.
Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude. - See more at: http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...rding-conduct-and-conver#sthash.dicbWlhW.dpuf
Jesus, you know you are like a parrot on this and not everyone has the time to do this kind of research for things that are matter of fact / common legal knowledge.
It's like when I have talked science or even math and people say prove it. A lot of deep science things are not available easily online without a paid subscription.
Hell, even simple news stories become unavailable online. You have to request a copy and pay a fee with the media outlet.
There is a big reason many dedicated surveillance cameras don't offer even audio on-board, but their multi-function counterparts do. Video in public is pretty acceptable, but audio is not in many places/situations.
Let's just focus on the popular Nanny cam debate and someone claiming what happens in their home by someone that is employed should be public:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/babysitternanny-camera-legality.html
Audio is a big no-no is many places even for public servants depending on the court you land in.
http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-la...ide/legal-limits-recording-conduct-and-conver
Also a big trump card with seizure of a device is if the officer can state he is seizing that device because he believe you have recording of a crime in progress, then courts many times have allowed that. They cannot delete/destroy the device though.
Fourth amendment is also misunderstood as well. Many still assume a cop can't search a vehicle if he sees something illegal inside it. That even if they think you were involved in a crime, they cannot detain / search you. That you do not have to provide your name/ID while driving a car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8qFAGLBJfE
Click ahead to about three minutes in. The officer tries to stop the audio taping by misrepresenting wiretap laws. Doesn't work out too well for him. Matter of fact, the whole encounter doesn't work out well for him.
while i agree with you and merg on the body cams (do we really need to tape them taking a shit?) you might want to read the links because one goes against what you claim.
Recording in public
The general rule is that people in public places must assume they might be photographed or recorded, particularly if they are officials carrying out their public duties. Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude
Some courts have even ruled on it. YOU have the right to video that includes audio a cop in PUBLIC.
Old video. also there is a series on this.
while i agree with you and merg on the body cams (do we really need to tape them taking a shit?) you might want to read the links because one goes against what you claim.
Recording in public
The general rule is that people in public places must assume they might be photographed or recorded, particularly if they are officials carrying out their public duties. Therefore, you may photograph, film and record what you can easily see or hear in public places, even if the recorded people have not specifically consented to such, provided you do not harass, trespass or otherwise intrude
Some courts have even ruled on it. YOU have the right to video that includes audio a cop in PUBLIC.
Old video. also there is a series on this.
Don't you love it when Alky comes in, claiming to know more than everyone else on the internet, then proves that he is a bumbling moron who knows less than nothing? It makes my day so much brighter.
If anyone wants to actually educate themselves instead of just making up laws that you think should be real, check out PINAC. http://photographyisnotacrime.com/
Those guys know their stuff and challenge authority every day to get them to honor their oaths.
Also, Alky is a moron.
YAY! NAME CALLING WINS!
You may want to research where they have worked and done things versus certain court districts.
AUDIO is a very sticky deal in many places.
We don't expect you to understand; you finally get a job with a company that has a private jet and think you are a partner or something.
You are wrong. And a moron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) was a case at the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of public officials in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated the citizen's First and Fourth Amendment rights.