Cops arrest woman videotaping traffic stop from her own front yard(boingboing.net)
boingboing.net
Cops arrest woman videotaping traffic stop from her own front yard
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/06/22/woman-who-filmed-cop.html
5 comments
'You are not listening to my orders'??? Since when do the cops get to order you around on your own property or anywhere for that matter if you aren't breaking the law. Ridiculous and depressing. Who decided to give all the guns to a bunch of uneducated egomaniacs?
Here's a question that interests me. Ok, the police order you to stop filming. Maybe the law says you should follow orders, maybe it doesn't. Myabe you should, maybe you shouldn't. But what is the deal if you film a police officer performing their duty in public if they don't order you to stop?
Example: I put up a camera in front of my home that films the walk to the front door and of course it captures events transpiring on the sidewalk or street in front of my house. I'm not home, it is filming 24/7 automatically. A police officer stops a car in front of my house. Am I breaking the law? Which one?
May a police officer enter my property, climb a ladder, and hang a flag over my camera to prevent filming them performing their duty? Why? Why not?
Example: I put up a camera in front of my home that films the walk to the front door and of course it captures events transpiring on the sidewalk or street in front of my house. I'm not home, it is filming 24/7 automatically. A police officer stops a car in front of my house. Am I breaking the law? Which one?
May a police officer enter my property, climb a ladder, and hang a flag over my camera to prevent filming them performing their duty? Why? Why not?
It would be on a per state basis. In several states [1] the common practice is now to use wiretapping laws to prosecute people who record conversations in which the parties involved have not consented to the recording.
Now in the example you chose, there is a different element in play, in that your camera is, ostensibly, for security and surveillance. I cannot speak to the specific laws of any state, but if surveillance is indeed the intent, I don't see it being particularly at issue for you to have the camera simply positioned somewhere.
It may be, however, that some states or municipalities have laws governing what areas may be observed by surveillance. For example, I cannot point a camera from across the street and at your bedroom window and claim that it is for surveillance on the side of my house. I don't want to be too anecdotal about that claim, but I was present for a neighborhood dispute with a similar situation in which one party was a lawyer and made some statements to that effect.
But back to wiretapping charges. It's best to simply know the laws in your state. In the State of Texas the recording a private conversation is legal as long as at least one party in the conversation is aware of it. You cannot record two random people in a private setting without their consent, but you can record your own conversation with someone, even if they are not aware of it.
[1] - http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...
Now in the example you chose, there is a different element in play, in that your camera is, ostensibly, for security and surveillance. I cannot speak to the specific laws of any state, but if surveillance is indeed the intent, I don't see it being particularly at issue for you to have the camera simply positioned somewhere.
It may be, however, that some states or municipalities have laws governing what areas may be observed by surveillance. For example, I cannot point a camera from across the street and at your bedroom window and claim that it is for surveillance on the side of my house. I don't want to be too anecdotal about that claim, but I was present for a neighborhood dispute with a similar situation in which one party was a lawyer and made some statements to that effect.
But back to wiretapping charges. It's best to simply know the laws in your state. In the State of Texas the recording a private conversation is legal as long as at least one party in the conversation is aware of it. You cannot record two random people in a private setting without their consent, but you can record your own conversation with someone, even if they are not aware of it.
[1] - http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010...
the voters. democracy and liberty don't make good bed fellows.
Police are not elected, and they rarely attract top talent. In many cases they're not even hired and promoted by people who were directly elected. So regardless of the system of government, our law enforcement would have similar people and behave in a similar manner. It's an incredibly undesirable profession: Going into tense situations, with people who distrust you by default, for not much pay. You can easily make more doing far less, so a factor in the remaining appeal of the profession is being able to command respect. All of this has little-to-nothing to do with democracy.
I'm not defending the police here. Not in the slightest. I'm simply explaining some factors related to the state of law enforcement, and pointing out that it has a lot less to do with democracy than you think.
I'm not defending the police here. Not in the slightest. I'm simply explaining some factors related to the state of law enforcement, and pointing out that it has a lot less to do with democracy than you think.
That the negatives of the bureaucratic apparatus of the state are not intended doesn't much matter. Voter ignorance doesn't much matter either. If people cared they could find out. That people don't care about liberty enough to investigate how best to secure it is exactly why democracy and liberty don't mix.
"Because of what you said before you started filming..." Cute.
I know this has been discussed before, but how far away are we from having tiny wearable cameras that are always recording? It certainly seems that's where things are headed. Are there companies working on this?
I know this has been discussed before, but how far away are we from having tiny wearable cameras that are always recording? It certainly seems that's where things are headed. Are there companies working on this?
times've changed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4mdZYUw0Q&feature=relat...
rights for guns have been taken away. Phone cameras came. Time for the 2nd Amendment, phone camera edition?
What would be the chances for Mehserle conviction (or even DA bringing the charges at all) if not for the phone video of him clearly intentionally shooting Grant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds4mdZYUw0Q&feature=relat...
rights for guns have been taken away. Phone cameras came. Time for the 2nd Amendment, phone camera edition?
What would be the chances for Mehserle conviction (or even DA bringing the charges at all) if not for the phone video of him clearly intentionally shooting Grant?
The neighbors get involved at about 3:30.
Although I appreciate that this information is getting out to people, does this really belong on HN?