Federal Appeals Court: You Have a Constitutional Right to Film Police Officers in Public (slate.com) 304
On Friday, a panel of judges for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the First Amendment protects individuals' right to film police officers performing their official duties. From a report: The 3rd Circuit now joins the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits in concluding that the Constitution guarantees a right to record. No federal appeals court has yet concluded that the First Amendment does not safeguard the right to film law enforcement officers conducting police activity in public. Friday's decision involved two instances in which the Philadelphia police retaliated against citizens attempting to film them. In the first incident, a legal observer named Amanda Geraci tried to film police arresting an anti-fracking protester when an officer pinned her against a pillar, preventing her from recording the arrest. In the second, a Temple University sophomore named Richard Fields tried to film police officers breaking up a house party when an officer asked him whether he "like[d] taking pictures of grown men" and demanded that he leave. When Fields refused, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscating his phone and looking through its photos and videos. The officer cited Fields for "Obstructing Highway and Other Public Passages," although the charges were dropped when the officer failed to appear at a court hearing. Geraci and Fields filed civil rights suits against the officers who interfered with their filming attempts.
It's not like they risk anything. (Score:3, Insightful)
They can still be filmed shooting and killing people without any reason and get away with it.
Well, black people anyway.
video lottery tickets (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure there is an invasion of privacy reflex, that of course, is misplaced.
I found it very interesting in the primaries someone tried
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Selective editing of one sided videos is a real threat to cops and anyone not protected by their own videos.
Not really a problem. The only thing that prevents cops from having their own videos is themselves.
If video evidence from other sources starts to show up then the cops misplaced recordings will start to show up and the recorders will have way less malfunction issues.
The first step about justice should be about finding out the truth, not getting people you consider to be bad locked up.
Having video evidence from several sources is a good step in that direction and should be beneficial both for law abiding cit
Re: (Score:2)
Selective editing of one sided videos is a real threat to cops and anyone not protected by their own videos. The ghetto lottery has become a regular cottage industry about this kind of abuse. I have no problem with holding cops responsible for mistakes and wrong doing, but many edited video payoff demands have been clearly shown to withhold crucial information too.
Well at least with regards to cops I feel they have perfectly legitimate reasons to record everything they do, even though access should obviously be restricted to protect confidential information, witnesses, privacy when they search private property and so on. So if only their body cams would stop "malfunctioning" when there's an incident they could show their side of the story. In any other circumstances yes it's always a concern who was filming the situation and why, do they have a form of agenda. But th
Re:video lottery tickets (Score:5, Insightful)
So if only their body cams would stop "malfunctioning" when there's an incident they could show their side of the story.
Now that body cams exist, we must stop taking cops' word for things. No evidence? No conviction. Period, the end. That's the only thing that's going to make the cops act responsibly vis-a-vis video evidence. Accepting a cop's word for anything has been conclusively shown to be harmful to justice.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with holding cops responsible for mistakes and wrong doing, but many edited video payoff demands have been clearly shown to withhold crucial information too.
This is a stupid objection, because we can detect when video has been edited and throw out the evidence in that case, or even pursue charges against the editor for falsifying evidence. It's worth worrying about, but still not a valid or logical argument against video evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Selective editing of ANY video is a problem in this context, including mandated footage that is mysteriously "lost" when needed as evidence. That's why both sides need to be aware that the other can be recording. It keeps everyone honest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Starting point would be to ackowledge crimes figures in the USA and admit a police officer is more likely to kill a young black person carrying a weapon in a high crime rate area refusing to follow an order than a white grandma sipping a tea at home or a white male sitting on his ass posting anonymous comments on internet.
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:4, Informative)
Putting aside for a moment that suicide by cop in some cases is actually a thing, and yes, I do believe that it's real, and putting aside that that an African American young man is far more likely to get shot by another fellow African American young man than by the police.
Another starting point would be to actually listen to this podcast, a super insightful interview of a criminologist.
https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/201... [kqed.org]
He also wrote a book, When Police Kill
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674... [amazon.com]
Civilian deaths from shootings and other police actions are vastly higher in the United States than in other developed nations, but American police also confront an unusually high risk of fatal assault. Zimring offers policy prescriptions for how federal, state, and local governments can reduce killings by police without risking the lives of officers. Criminal prosecution of police officers involved in killings is rare and only necessary in extreme cases. But clear administrative rules could save hundreds of lives without endangering police officers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"an African American young man is far more likely to get shot by another fellow African American young man than by the police."
This is a strawman argument. Every African American man is not being paid a 6 figure salary for a job which does not need a college degree.
Cops are being paid to use their judgement and we are footing the bill so when it happens that they screw up and not use judgement we do get to criticize our employees.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a strawman argument. Every African American man is not being paid a 6 figure salary for a job which does not need a college degree.
That was my point actually. That is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed, but for a variety of reasons, I didn't want to address it in my response.
Cops are being paid to use their judgement and we are footing the bill so when it happens that they screw up and not use judgement we do get to criticize our employees.
Yes, that's true, but the podcast I pointed to specifically addresses the training issue.
For instance, there is a myth going around that a person with a knife can kill a police officer with an undrawn firearm if that person is within 21 feet of the police officer. And that myth is used to train some police officers to shoot anyone who threatens them w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Starting point would be to ackowledge crimes figures in the USA
No, the starting point is recognizing that the Police Unions are too powerful.
All public sector unions need to be abolished. These unions work against the public interests. The voters need to be the only Union for the public sector.
Re: (Score:2)
The public interests are to have a smoothly working government. Unions help grease the gears.
Do you think that there's some magic pixie powder in the government buildings that makes the average bureaucrat a fundamentally better and fairer kind of manager and employer than private sectors?
Bureaucrats are people, and in any organization you always have a certain number of people who, if you give them an inch, they'll
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No argument that there's problems with unions. Personally, I think that sort of bullshit does more harm to the employees that unions are supposed to protect than anyone else and it's something I'm strongly against.
On the other hand, if you seriously think you can depend on the competence and fairness of upper managem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with public sector unions is that closing down the business and selling off the assets is not an option in the event of a strike. In the private sector, if the owners and the union reach an impasse, the company can always choose to go out of business and sell their assets. If public sector unions are going to be allowed to exist, they must not be allowed to go on strike.
Slaves? Yeah, I feel terrible for those poor abused government employees with their health insurance, their insane fixed be
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So just to be clear, because I think that you shouldn't give up rights simply because you work for the government
How come the first thing you say is always a fucking bullshit fallacy? You do understand that you keep opening with a flag that reads "You cant trust me, now listen up" .. yes? You do realize that, right?
The People are the Union of the Public Workers. Full Stop.
No Rights are being taken away from The Police by abolishing their bullshit Union. On the contrary, their bullshit Union is taking away the rights of The People.
is it All People you hate, or just Brown People?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:5, Interesting)
We get to be extra jumpy and fearful around a carrying but otherwise normal black guy, an officer doesn't. If he is, he's not fit for duty.
That is not the standard. The standard is that being jumpy and fearful is not a valid reason to shoot someone, whether you are a cop or not. Remember, although many states interfere with your constitutional rights (I'm looking at you, my home state of California) you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And with that right comes the responsibility to not shoot people just because you find them to be scary.
Of course, in our society it remains permissible to shoot someone because they are black and you are scared, and that is shit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. The individual's subjective experience isn't the question. A person with a mental disorder like paranoid schizophrenia might be genuinely terrified in a particular situation, but that wouldn't necessarily justify use of force.
For citizens, a typical legal standard is to consider what a "reasonable person" would perceive in certain circumstances. This is often written explicitly in the statutes. Many of the so-called "stand your ground laws" state that use of force is justified in a situation wher
Re: (Score:2)
The police are in a lose-lose scenario. If they dont shoot A) they can get killed or B) the muppet kills someone else and the public gets the pitchforks out or C) they shoot t
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that's not what happened for example in the Castile case. If we break down the chain of events that lead to him dying from the video footage [youtube.com] it goes like this;
1. The officer asks for a license and insurance (1:01 in the video). Castile hands over a part of it (either ID or insurance), and the cop returns it to him (1:08) and starts going for the rest. My guess is that he's going for the insurance papers from the glove box.
2. Before this, probably because the documents he's about to get are close/near the gun he informs the officer he has a weapon (1:09) so as not to scare the cop if the weapon becomes visible when he's getting the stuff that was asked for. He says: "Sir, I do have to inform you I do have a firearm on me"
And here's where things go wrong
3. The cop acknowledges what Castile said, saying at first "Okay" (1:11) following it up with "Don't reach for it then". The cop has not ordered him to stop moving, or told him to stop going for his insurance papers or ID. He simply repeats 'Don't pull it out' (1:13). If you listen close you can hear Castile saying something after this, the audio is a bit bad but I thin it's: "I'm not a criminal" (1:14). It's also notable that Castile is stuttering, he's obviously nervous by having had what began as a peaceful exchange now turn immediately hostile even though he was trying to ensure the opposite by informing the officer about the gun. He apparently keeps going for his ID/insurance papers (again, something he was told to do and at this point has not been told to stop to do) at which point the officer yells a third time "Don't pull it out!" (1:15) and the immediately opens fire (1:16).
If you look at the timestamps, this goes from a point where Castile and the cop both think the situation is under control (the "okay' at the 1:11 mark) to deadly in 5 seconds. The officer does not give clear orders, if he wanted Castile to stop moving entirely he could've told him to freeze and then ask for the location of the weapon for example. Castile also should have told the officer where the weapon is, and I think he actually would have done so had the cop not immediately interrupted him by telling him the same thing 3 times in 4 seconds with increasing aggression. This is a clear case of a total failure in communication, and that's something that's entirely the fault of the officer.. Police are trained to handle these kind of situations and they're specifically trained to give clear commands and de-escalate, which is the exact opposite of what happened here. In this case instead of saying what he actually wants Castile to do (stop moving so he can know where the weapon is) he simply tells him what not to do, and Castile follows that order completely by not pulling the weapon out as he was told and still gets shot because he was unable to read the thoughts of the panicking police officer in the time span of 5 seconds that it took for the officer to escalate the entire situation
Re: It's not like they risk anything. (Score:2)
Oh, please, this is a bunch of bullshit if I've ever heard it. We've all seen enough of these fatal shootings on video to know that 1) most of the victims of police shootings aren't actually armed and 2) after the officer issues their "order" they don't even wait a half second before unloading on the victim.
Too many police officers are just itching to kill someone--specifically, they're itching to kill black men. It's disingenuous to make excuses for them.
Re: It's not like they risk anything. (Score:3)
Re: It's not like they risk anything. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
carrying but otherwise normal
Hate to break it to you but unless you're in a fucked-up nanny state, carrying is normal... and this is coming from a thirty-year vegetarian and quasi Buddhist who didn't vote for either of those two Bilderberg-approved fascists.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you live in a war zone, need to protect your animals or such or planning on shooting something for dinner, why would someone carry? An arm is just a tool, if you don't need it, why carry it around? Fetish? Next you'll be saying that carrying a hammer is normal, and it is normal if doing some carpentry but otherwise...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a big if involved there, which I covered by the living in a war zone part of my comment. Personally, where I live, the odds of someone trying to shoot me is so low that it would be stupid to worry about it. More likely to randomly have a tree drop on my head and the real worry is some of the shitty drivers that I encounter.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've got an interesting point here, it's a very real factor that probably gets overlooked, the officer's fear.
I don't think there's much fear involved when an officer shoots a black man, who is walking away from him, in the back.
Multiple times.
Re: (Score:3)
I understand that they take up a very dangerous mantle
They like to create that perception, but it's really not the case, they rarely make the top 10 dangerous jobs. For example, this list [rapidcityjournal.com] pegs them at number 18 with 11.7 deaths per 100,000. And it's not getting shot that causes that danger, the most common cause of on-duty police officer deaths is traffic accidents. I worked for many years in a much more dangerous job but nobody had parades and 21 gun salutes when one of us died.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but trees and fish are not actively trying to kill workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Birds are. Lots of people died back in the day when high lead logging. They used a whistle for signalling (whistle punk) and ravens would have fun by adding extra touts or touting while some poor guy was setting a choker. They never even would slow down the operation when someone got killed, it was so common.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you have identified a key part of the problem. When I hear about officer-involved shootings, and I hear that the officer was "in fear for his/her life" and that they are "trained to shoot when they are threatened" I wonder whether that is how they should be being trained. The general public is not aware of the risks that police officers face (not in the same way that the officers are), and so a member of the public is likely to respond to a situation differently than a police officer may expect th
Re:It's not like they risk anything. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Remember, it's not an officer's job to die in the line of duty"
Thats where you are wrong. Cop is one of the highest paying jobs for someone without a college degree and just like crab fishing or undersea welding they are being paid to take the risk.
They are supposed to risk their lives by holding on for a second before firing so that an innocent citizen does not get killed just because they were scared. Yes this is a risk but they are paid to take this risk. If you dont want to risk your life to prevent civilian deaths (including due to your own incorrect fire) you should not sign up to be a cop
Unfortunately nowadays we are hiring cowards as cops. Cowards get scared easily and shoot before asking questions.
Re: It's not like they risk anything. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are so full of shit it is mind-blowing. Whites commit just as many crimes.
Yes indeed! And there happens to be about four times as many whites as blacks. Meaning - the crime rate for blacks is higher. Source of statistics [fbi.gov]. Half of all murders were committed by blacks; about 45% by whites. Yet whites outnumber blacks by 4:1. Does that mean all blacks are thugs and killers? Of course not! But it does mean, if there is a murder or robbery, chances are it was commited by a black criminal. Facts are facts - even if you don't like them.
Re: It's not like they risk anything. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How many were actively fighting with you or trying to grab your weapon?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
The 3rd Circuit now joins the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th
Something different about the even-numbered ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 9th circuit is the only one of those that's not a prime number.
Your right to point your camera (Score:5, Insightful)
ends on an officer's fist. Please remember: officers enjoy qualified immunity even when they are completely wrong about the law as long as they can make believe that they are clueless, and they are preselected for stupidity: a high IQ score disqualifies applicants from service.
Re: Your right to point your camera (Score:5, Interesting)
What's that phrase I always hear them say?
Ignorance of the law is not a valid legal defense?
Interesting how it only goes one way.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like what Rambus did whe
Re: (Score:2)
As you state fairly well here, the key is to call your congress/senators and request that the write a federal law that protects your right to record audio, video or both on anyone at any time in any venue where there is no expectation of privacy (everywhere except public restrooms/changing rooms/inside a person's house/car/RV/tent/etc. and maybe on their property if you are not physically present; no telephoto/drone recording etc.) As part of the law, make it a $500 fine and 5 days in jail to prevent someo
Re: (Score:3)
Say what? The USPTO has issued patents under the principle of first to invent since its founding, being almost the only national patent office to do so. It became first to file in 2013, well after the RAMBUS case (and still is so today).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, violating constitutional rights opens officers and their departments up to big lawsuits. Since the people in question were not seriously injured, etc they would not be prosecuted for a criminal act.
Re: (Score:2)
In those federal circuits a claim of qualified immunity ain't gonna work anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will because they simply collude with the prosecutor's office to ignore it. Civil cases are fine this needs criminal charges that MUST be filed otherwise it just gets swept under the rug.
Re: (Score:2)
But unfortunately it did work.
The ruling affirmed the people's right to record, but it also used "qualified immunity" to say that the police officers in question could not be held liable for what they did to the people doing the recording. The court claimed that the right to record had not been "clearly established" when the incidents took place. Nothing happens to the cops and the victims can't sue for damages.
Look on the bright side though. Overturning that idiotic lower court ruling was a big win. Co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess it wasn't because the subjects were peacefully enjoying a nice evening without bothering anyone.
It isn't a foregone conclusion, though. Innocent people interact with the police all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they be having problems with the police if they were innocent?
Let me rephrase that: why would the above even need a sarcasm marker?
Because there are a lot of right-wing authoritarian crypto-fascists here, claiming to be libertarians. The sad truth is that some people come over all superior to everyone else if you give them a couple of dollars to rub together, and start saying shit like "if they're not criminals, they have nothing to fear". They have not even the vaguest hint of how the other half lives because they've never been pulled over for driving while brown, or harassed by street cops for carrying a big bag while looking poor, o
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the police were called to a scene it doesn't mean that the reason the people they are interacting with are the cause of the call.
For example there's this case [odt.co.nz] in which a car probably backfired and caused the police to come out. The subjects were just enjoying a nice time when the police came knocking at their door. Not every interaction a police officer has during their shift ends up with someone getting a ticket or getting arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
The cops came to my house and PULLED MY GATE POST OUT OF THE GROUND (it was loose, which is a story in and of itself which I am not going to tell here at the moment but which resulted in my purchasing a handgun for self-protection) in order to come up my driveway and respond to a 911 call in which someone gave my address in spite of not being at my house. I still don't know whether that was an attempted SWATting or whether some meth head who didn't know where they were was having an identity crisis, but I k
Re:Your right to point your camera (Score:5, Insightful)
If the person filming becomes a distraction in the execution of their job, they are well within their rights to stop it, and should.
Wrong, and also wrong. If the person becomes a direct impediment to the execution of their job, then they have a right to stop them from being an impediment. Getting in the officer's way to get a better shot of the action would be that. Nothing else is. It doesn't matter how distracted the officer is by the fact that there is a camera present. He should be glad it is there if he is acting scrupulously, because it is evidence of what actually happened. The only time an officer would not want a camera present and rolling is if they themselves are violating the law.
The benefit of the doubt should be given to the officer.
Absolutely not. The benefit of the doubt should never be given to someone just because they have a badge. Period, the end, absolutely never. They should always have to have evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Also remember that an officer is dealing with difficult circumstances. If the person filming becomes a distraction in the execution of their job, they are well within their rights to stop it, and should...
This only applies in a crime scene, as delimited by yellow police tape. Anyone who beats the cops to the scene of a crime has to be aware that they could be considered part of it.
Re: (Score:3)
If the person filming becomes a distraction in the execution of their job, they are well within their rights to stop it, and should.
Yes, it's criminally distracting to constantly have to think of what is permissible to do and what not, only because some annoying person is filming you.
Re: (Score:2)
If they cant do their jobs while being filmed they should quit. Noone is forcing them to be cops
Just remember (Score:5, Insightful)
that the police officer has the right to use deadly violence to defend himself, if he feels that his life is threatened by a camera. And the law is always on its own side, never yours.
Re: (Score:2)
So what if I feel threatened by their body camera? Of never mind, it's probably turned off. Sorry, I mean cutbacks have caused reduced maintenance schedules for the cameras causing them to fail at inopportune moments.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah well right to self defense is absolute. In theory it includes killing cops to save your own life if you feel the cop is about to kill you. If this cop misbehaviour keeps getting worse we may eventually have a case where a suspect kills an arresting officer and claims self defense on the stand. And a pissed off jury may believe it. Than the cops will reap a whirlwind of shit.
Hence it is in good cops' interests to weed out the bad cops amonst their midst specifically the cowards who are jumping at shadow
I knew Philadelphia cops were corrupt (Score:2)
Mike Ermantraut told me
nodal voltage analysis (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cases of judges abusing their power to beat up or shoot a defendant in the court room are... nonexistent I believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... you can't film in court w/o the judge's permission.
Cases of judges abusing their power to beat up or shoot a defendant in the court room are... nonexistent I believe.
True, and I understand the various reasons taking video/photos in court may be generally prohibited - mainly to avoid disruptions - but I was more remarking on how people are inclined to apply/enforce standards to/on others but not to/on themselves.
For example, Congress was/is all too happy to support the 22nd Amendment setting a term limit for the President, but whenever asked about setting term limits for members of the House and Senate they're all about defending the people's right to choose their ele
Re: (Score:2)
Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Lee Atwater alone make a delusional liar out of you.
Do nothing wrong & you've got nothing to hide (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're not doing anything wrong you've got nothing to hide, right? This applies to them too.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have nothing to hide ... (Score:2)
How is RECODING speech? (Score:2)
Though I agree with the court, that recording anything one can legally observe should itself be legal, I do not understand, what the First Amendment has to do with this right. What is the connection between such recording — which can (and often is) done silently — and Free Speech?
If it is the plans to later publish the recordings, that place their preparation legal, then a lot of other activity may fall under the Amendment's protection — such as leaking state secrets [theatlantic.com] or "entering federal [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What is the connection between such recording â" which can (and often is) done silently â" and Free Speech?
If you have a right to free speech, then you obviously have a right to free observing, free listening, and free remembering - video just helps you do those two things as an assistive technology.
Re: (Score:2)
What?! Seems like a non-sequitur to me... One does not follow from the other at all...
See my earlier response [slashdot.org] to the Anonymous for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why they had to make a First Amendment argument in the first place. If the government cannot point to a specific law which prohibits recording, the police have no authority to interfere. When We, The People are in a public place and government is spying on us, they assert that we have no "reasonable expectation of privacy". How can government employees claim that they are entitled to special rights when they're in public? I think the ruling should have affirmed the right to record on
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why they had to make a First Amendment argument in the first place. If the government cannot point to a specific law which prohibits recording, the police have no authority to interfere. When We, The People are in a public place and government is spying on us, they assert that we have no "reasonable expectation of privacy". How can government employees claim that they are entitled to special rights when they're in public? I think the ruling should have affirmed the right to record on that basis. No law is being broken and police cannot interfere in lawful activity.
I'm not sure why we needed the First Amendment here, but I trust that the ACLU & their lawyers know what they're doing & I'm very pleased with the end result. For once, a ruling goes our way.
Many states (I do not know about Pennsylvania) did enact laws that made it illegal to record police officers. So it is possible that, in the case that such a law did exist and then it would be required for the plaintiff to prove that the law recorded either violates the state or federal constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the law can not predict every situation, police officers have the authority to order people around as they see fit (this ability is what attracts an unhealthy number of people to become pigs in the first place). When so ordered, you must obey — or you can be charged with a crime for disobeying. Your only defense then will be the illegality of the order...
So I am not surprised, people attempt to establish that any orders to "stop recording" are illegal
Re: (Score:2)
I get the gist of what you're saying, but cops can't just wander around ordering people to do things, arresting them if they refuse & getting them prosecuted for the crime of disobeying orders. All of the statutes about disobeying an officer cover only "lawful" orders. If they arrested you and roughed you up for disobeying what was clearly an unlawful order, you would have a legal case against them.
I'm agreeing that the First Amendment argument seems a little awkward. I'm saying that if recording the
Re:How is RECORDING speech? (Score:2)
If that's your argument, that mere plans to publish a recording later protect any activity making it, you need to answer my follow-up questions for it to make sense:
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they be protected when they have nothing to do with recording things for news? If you wanted to not wag your tongue at strawmen, you'd come up with a relevant example like calling the swat team on an innocent victim for the purpose of recording the results. In which case, filing a false police report is illegal, filming it would not be.
As for playing Nightcrawler, here's a handy guide for you:
cool. Now make this for court as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with cameras in court are specifically because for a jury trial, the jurors and witnesses can't feel intimidated. While a crime of passion murder trial is probably not concerned with intimidation, you can bet your ass that a gang related murder is going to be. Your right to video ends where the public's right to a fair trial begins.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT, it is only right that we get to see these.
Re:Body Cam. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are cheap enough for ANYONE to own one now. Even a Covert one! And just Like My Amex.... I Never leave home without it. If they want to beat people up, violate their own laws, and generally act like thugs... At the Very LEAST They will become Internet Infamous for it! :-)
The worst thing that will happen to them is that they will get a reprimand for wiping the memory on your body cam after they imprison you and take all of your stuff. This is why we need a law that says that if there's no evidence that an arrest was warranted, whether from body cam footage or another source more reputable than officer hearsay (which has conclusively been shown to be unreliable, and indeed, typically outright false) we should never grant a conviction. It should be "what, no body cam footage? case dismissed!"
Re: (Score:2)
BLM are officially against arrests/etc. being filmed. So while you can legally film some police action legally, you are increasing the chances of clearing a police officer of charges and are explicitly working against BLM.
You left out the logic part. There's a whole bunch of your comment missing in between "filmed." and "So", like all of the justification for the statement that "you are increasing the chances of clearing a police officer of charges and are explicitly working against BLM".