Court: Videotaping police is constitutional act

I accept sometimes the person in contact with the police creates a drama situation.I also accept sometimes what happens next is a bit like watching sausage being made.

Maybe we wish we did not have to see it.Things should not be that way,etc.

I accept,if I am having a police contact: A)They may interview me,say there is no problem,and tell me I am free to go,or B)There may be a problem,and,at that point,I'm getting handcuffs.

In all of this process,a cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong.The police are not going to get intimidated or back down.

The camera thing,I believe if the person with the camera is pushing in close,making comments,distracting the officer,trying to intimidate with the camera,etc,they are interfering with the officer.That can get the officer killed,and it is a problem.

But 50 ft away,quietly recording,should be no problem.I believe we do have that right.

I know "Cops" is a TV show."Cops" shows police doing what they have to do.Sometimes it gets rough till the situation is under control,and we,the public,can handle it fine.

What we cannot handle,and what needs to be exposed ,are events like the Rodney King beating.

Remember,the Constitution limits what the government can do to us(sigh).A video cam may well be of more value than a gun in the face of tyranny(large or small tyranny)
 
This is no simple matter. A person filming police activity from the window of their apartment is one thing. But the presence of a cameraman at a civil disturbance, which is usually anything but civil, can have the tendency to escalate matters. If the crowd is trying to "make a statement," or to call attention to their cause, I suspect having a news camera around will make things a little more unsettled, to say the least.

On the other hand, if the intent of the crowd is more along the lines of simple hooliganism with a little bit of thievery thrown in, then the presence of a news camera is unlikely to have any effect and in fact the cameraman may be in a bit of danger himself. These days, however, everyone but me seems to have an electronic gadget capable of producing a full-length feature film with selected short subjects. The genie is out of the bottle.

I'd have to conclude whether something is meet, right and proper is almost irrelevant. It will happen, legal or not.
 
Something tells me the founding fathers did not have the same idea of privacy that we have and anyway, the camera was a few decades away.
 
"It seems the consensus is that we the public are unwilling to allow the level of privacy to the police in the performance of their duties that we expect to be allowed ourselves in our own lives as they are lived in public."

Except I, for one, am not so silly as to believe that when I'm outside my own home and on public streets that any great expectation of privacy attaches.

To claim such would be ludicrous, and the courts have routinely held that one surrenders expectations of privacy from observation when venturing out into public.

Similarly numerous court cases have been lodged claiming invasion of privacy in regard to traffic cameras that photograph the driver of a vehicle. As far as I know, none have been successful on that basis alone.
 
As zincwarrior pointed out, the police have us on camera when they are working. That does tend to undermine their complaints, on the moral side of the house. On the legal side, with exceptions (undercovers, etc) they have no leg on which to stand.
 
I didn't think morality entered into the thing; just the legality of it.

I try not to lead such a secretive live myself that i would worry about being filmed or photographed, though I assure you "BlueTrain" is not my real name. I've started paying more attention to my personal appearance, though. You may laugh but people do get stopped based purely on their appearance or their "looks," if you will.

I wonder if it's legal to wear a mask or cover your face in public, especially given that other parts have to be covered. Funny rules we have, isn't it?
 
Funny you should mention masks. The founders considered it a matter of law to be identifiable in public, a regulation of behavior.. Outward identification wasn’t a matter of privacy, it was simply part of who you were as a person. Who you were on the inside, the human being itself, was a matter of honor, and private. Well, until a person’s inner nature caused them to affect others. Then, the bad behavior could be regulated and the good rewarded.
Who you are as a person is your rightful mask, the way you present yourself, and the proper way for govt. to see you. The word person is even derived from the Latin word for mask. To the founders, wearing a mask beyond that of your status as person was an act affecting your relationship with others, and with the government. To be considered a right, wearing it would have to be an extension of other rights. Religious and medical reasons are obvious, and other reasons can be found. Showing your face was part of being honest with others. Wearing a mask without a reason was suspect and could be forbidden or regulated.
Curiously, the same was thought of weapons. Concealed carry was considered suspect unless there was a valid reason stemming from the person’s rights or social convention., and could be regulated. Open carry was considered more honest, and a simple exercise of personal rights.

And the case in Pearl, MS of the two teenagers videotaping. I’m not saying what the cops did is right, but there’s a lot more to the story than what’s been brought up.
They were serving a warrant on a child molester, the apartments were more like projects, dirtbag started shooting when they went in to get him, all hell broke loose all over the area, mother of the "kids" moved a truck that the cops outside were using as cover when the shooting started, One cop dead, two wounded, dirtbag dead.
There was a lot of movement everywhere, and all at once. Rankin County cops might have a little bit of a siege mentality right now, but in some cases it’s keeping them alive. There have been several times when they go to arrest someone, and next thing they know, "bystanders" are taking shots at them. High tension and chaotic surroundings make it unreasonable to judge some of their actionshere, imo. To expect clean-cut squeaky cleanness, you’d have to secure the area with troops before making an arrest in some of these places. No resources for that, and more people’s rights would be violated doing it.
This from a guy that won’t hesitate to rip the cops a new one when I think they deserve it.
 
Curiously, the same was thought of weapons. Concealed carry was considered suspect unless there was a valid reason stemming from the person’s rights or social convention., and could be regulated. Open carry was considered more honest, and a simple exercise of personal rights.
Click to expand...

You had me, right till there...

ADDING:

And the rest of your post seems to be excusing forced entry without a warrant simply because the LEO's were 'riled up'...
 
that’s OK, don’t want you .:D ... joke:)

not because they were riled up, but trying to secure an area that was in chaos.
Excusing, going after someone recording, no. Excusing "collateral damage" maybe. Given the situation the cops were in, it depends highly on other actions the recorders took … as to whether the cops were justified in going after them. There’s a lot that hasn’t been reported about this particular mess, and probably won’t ever be. You’ll get the full side of the story as presented by the "teens" and their mother, though.
 
While I understand that the LEO's were rightfully upset about the loss of a 'brother', they do not help the situation by stomping on the constitution...
 
Nice sentiment, but I don’t give cops a pass for emotional considerations.

Just from experience, and knowing a few details... I think it’s likely the teens and/or mom did something stupid, and appeared aggressive to the cops. Given the dangers inherent to the area they were in, I think it’s reasonable to be less tolerant of aggressive behavior than under "normal" circumstances.

Cops also have the right to self protection. If they were honestly trying to secure their own safety, and had reasonable cause to act upon a belief that they were in danger … Constitutional principles were upheld, not trampled upon.
Whether the teens actually posed a danger, and what they were doing is irrelevant. What matters is … what the police reasonably believed the teens were doing.

not enough info to judge, imo.
 
Along these same lines, a Florida judge ruled Tuesday (5-22-12) that flashing of the headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a police presence is protected free speech. We'll see where that goes.

VIDEO SOURCE

Warning Other Drivers Of Speed Traps Is Constitutionally Protected Free Speech
Driver in Florida can't be cited for using his lights to communicate
AOL Original Content Posted: May 24, 2012 | By: AOL Autos Staff

A judge in Florida ruled on Tuesday that flashing one's headlights to warn other drivers of speed traps set by police is protected by the First Amendment.

...

The judge agreed that the officer misapplied a law meant to ban motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights and ruled that the law does not apply to people using headlights as a form of communication. Thus, the court decided, citing Kintner was, in fact, a violation of one of his Constitutionally-protected rights.

[MORE]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top