Man faces jail for videotaping gun-waving cop

I went back and counted the number of posts that talked only of the 1A issue. There were 8 posts. There were 10 posts that talked about both issues - counting them as a half point each, that means there were 13 posts, out of 40, discussing the 1A issue.... Even throwing out those 10 posts altogether, that means that almost 3/4 of the thread is focusing on the cop.

Jason, do you think that since 2/3 of the thread has discussed the issue of the officer pulling a gun, it may very well have been discussed enough? At what point do we talk about the 1A issue?

Unless you missed it, MD allows the dash cams - cops taping the public, but disallows the public taping the cops! I'm sorry if in my mind that constitutes the larger issue.
 
The cyclist was an idiot, but so was the police officer. There is absolutely no reason a weapon had to be drawn. There was absolutely nothing that indicated the officer's life was threatened in any way, which should be the ultimate arbiter of the use of deadly force. This video amply demonsrates the "militarization" of our police force, and the lack of proper training. Officers should be taught to defuse confrontation rather than escalate it. If the police do not want to have a video camera focused upon them, then stop using them in the public arena focused on John Q Public. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In my opinion the motorcycle driver should lose his license and the officer his job.
 
Unless you missed it, MD allows the dash cams - cops taping the public, but disallows the public taping the cops! I'm sorry if in my mind that constitutes the larger issue.
Click to expand...
That, and the lack of any presumption or reasonable expectation of privacy.

Can there be any presumption of privacy whatsoever when filming a public servant in a public place, acting in his or her official, public capacity? How about when the agency is also filming without consent?

Answer: Not a chance.

I am unaware of any successful prosecution of such a law in circumstances like this. I think the value of the law to the LE agency lies in it's use as an intimidation tool, and as a basis for seizing said video and equipment. I think any smart DA knows if they push this at all, then the law will be struck on appeal and they lose their bully stick.
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly the cop should have had the shield in one hand, firearm (if really necessary) in the other. He's just an armed lunatic unless he identifies himself immediately and verifiably (aka badge, some sort of ID)

The whole video taping wiretap thing is just BS, enough said.
 
The officer wasn't a patroman. He wasn't in uniform, he wasn't showing a badge and did not identify himself until well into the event. (I saw the video) I can't fathom how videotaping the incident could violate any kind of law or anyones rights. Only rights violated were those of the citizens present, including the one with the camera.
 
I am relatively unconcerned by the PO drawing his weapon. He just kept it at the ready. I can tell you that I have had an irrate PO who couldn't keep his hand off his holstered arm, and I found that more disconcerting than a calm man just holding an arm.

The officer wasn't a patroman. He wasn't in uniform, he wasn't showing a badge and did not identify himself until well into the event.
Click to expand...

In my state, in order to pull a driver over and make any citation stick, an officer must be in uniform and in a marked car. We've had charges dismissed where the word "police" wasn't printed in large enough type on the car, and where a PO isn't wearing his cover while he writes the ticket.

Just being a fellow in jeans and a pullover with a gun is a bad idea.


I think the AG had the correct analysis on the wiretap issue. Without an expectation of privacy, you cannot violate an expectation of privacy. Sometimes what PDs and prosecutors appear to have is an expectation of non-accountability. That's different.
 
What this gets back to, for me, is why Maryland state prosecutors don't prosecute any media outlets for broadcasting video footage of public events - sporting events, riots, protests, people milling around after some crime or accident - without them obtaining a release from every person in the video. After all, if it was illegal for Mr. Graber to video/audio record a public officer performing a public safety duty in a public place, it should be equally illegal for the media to broadcast without a huge sheaf of release forms.
 
Al, I don't know how to answer this question:
Jason, do you think that since 2/3 of the thread has discussed the issue of the officer pulling a gun, it may very well have been discussed enough? At what point do we talk about the 1A issue?
Click to expand...

My comments were directed toward your earlier statement:
This is not about the cop. It is not about what he did or didn't do. This is about a law that MD prosecutors are using to stifle the first amendment rights of its citizens.
Click to expand...
As the OP, I disagreed with that. "This" is about both issues, but specifically I was interested in what TFL members thought regarding the firearm usage and involvement. (and why I thought the TFL community specifically might have some good thoughts/comments/concerns) If all that was in question here was the 1A issue, I'm not sure that it makes much sense to bring up here at TFL.

Does that answer your question? I'm not saying don't discuss either topic; what I am saying is that "this" is not only about 1A. This thread was started for the purposes of discussing the officer and his actions.

And given the course of the discussion, it seems to me that opinion on his actions varies widely.
 
Too many posts here to read all.
Would someone explain what laws might have been violated by video taping this incident?
As a former professional news photographer, I always believed, and lived and worked by, the principal that when in public there is no expectation of privacy.
I simply do not believe an arrest would survive the courts.
 
Would someone explain what laws might have been violated by video taping this incident?
As a former professional news photographer, I always believed, and lived and worked by, the principal that when in public there is no expectation of privacy.
I simply do not believe an arrest would survive the courts.
Click to expand...

The "wiretapping" charges in this particular case have been dropped, but the only reason they *might* have passed the "straight face" test is that in Maryland, audio recording requires the permission of both parties involved. Of course, that was meant to apply to private spaces or telephone conversations, and the Maryland Attorney General has come out and said that it doesn't really apply to public interactions between the police and the populace.
 
I am unaware of any successful prosecution of such a law in circumstances like this. I think the value of the law to the LE agency lies in it's use as an intimidation tool, and as a basis for seizing said video and equipment. I think any smart DA knows if they push this at all, then the law will be struck on appeal and they lose their bully stick.
Click to expand...
That's what seems to be the case here. Like the classroom bully that takes care not to attract the attention of the teacher, the police seem to take measures to make sure this stuff never actually ends up in court. As long as they don't get told NOT to do it then they "can" continue to do it.
 
This is USA, not communist China, or some backwater banana republic. There are laws and they apply to LEO too. This rotten apple stinks up the whole bunch IMO. I don't even get how people arguing or giving him so many passes. In fact am of the opinion that non uniformed or off duty LEO should not be allowed to make traffic stops. Its dangerous at best. If he was a murderer freeing, by all means do this, but we all have to wary of how far we allow the popo to push the envelope. As someone who has lived in totalitarian country in another life, I can tell you, this is how it all starts. Small seemingly harmless acts beget even more seeming harmless acts and until you have a police state where you can't go to the can without some guy monitoring you. You can't walk outside at 6pm without the authorities harrasing you. Before long, they just make up their own laws on the fly as they go. Before you know it.... well. Please do not confuse me with some arlamist or cook rightwing nutcase. I talk from expirience. Last I checked, the guys in the old country were 100% human, and didn't look all that diffrent from this Rambo guy or any American in general. Just a thought. :rolleyes:

The freedoms and rights of this country are a big part of why people want to move here. It is what is beautiful and so unique about this great country, but some of yall take it for granted. Sorry if I insult anyone's feelings, its not my intention. A little time in some lessor country with weak laws and strong "security" aparatus will make you quickly appretiate and treasure what we got over here. ;)
 
Last edited:
If this guy is still a National Guard member who hopefully has been sent to a motorcycle safety class if he has not had one. We are able to schedule these classes for our part time reservists to take paid and with per diem if necessary. Hopefully, if he is still in he has a jacket full of counseling statements from his chain of command for being unsafe and an idiot. If I were his CO and on a military base he would be parking it at the front gate for a while and walking.

Yes the Police officer did not identify himself soon enough.

He did draw his sidearm from the holster for what two seconds? then reholstered it after he assessed the situation was safe. He never pointed it at anybody. Not going to armchair quarterback the officer in this area.

Now for the 1A issues.

The Police Department and the DA were not thinking with this charge it was probably going to get thrown out by the judge.. Was there a law against doing the filming in the state yes. The Maryland AG has issued an opinion that the filming was ok. Due Process has worked. The charges are dropped. I think the judge who released him said the charges were not right.

The police and the DA were not listening when the judge said that if they decided to pursue it further.

now for what should happen...

The officer needs a little refresher training or counseling.

The Head of the State Police has probably received a copy of the decision from the Maryland AG read it and distributed it to the field for review and training. The decison has been sent to the PDs in maryland for review and training.

The DA has hopefully recieved and read the AG Decison and has decided he was stupid for wasting tax dollars on this charge.

As pointed out this is two separate issues. The press and bloggers are mixing apples and oranges.

However, It was his disregard for the law that started this ball rolling. Hopefully, he has learned to obey the law after his 26 hour stay in jail.
 
Last edited:
First, I wouldn't stop for any stranger who I could not positively identified a a police officer. That include any unmarked vehicle.

Secondly, the officer is engaging in very dangerous and irresponsible behavior that could get him killed.

Thirdly, if, God forbid, the citizen shot that armed man before he identified himself as an officer, that video would have had a good chance of vindicating him in court.

The officer said "get off the motorcycle" three times with a gun in his hand before identifying himself (only verbally) as a state police officer. If the cop were in that citizen's position, the bike would have become cover from which to begin shooting. And it would have been justified.
 
Last edited:
In response to dec,
I would hope an off duty officer would be willing to step in and stop a crime that is endangering lives. That guy was driving like jerk and easily could have caused an accident. If you have ever driven in MD you would know the roads are bad enough without some jerk on a motorcylce weaving in and out of traffic doing 120 mph.
 
A public official or officer should be able to be video taped by John Q. Public. Any public official acting in accordance with the law should have nothing to fear from any camera.

Putting on a blue uniform does not make one immune to the standards of conduct of the rest of a community.

Bless all our police because they have one of the hardest jobs in the world....
 
I would hope an off duty officer would be willing to step in and stop a crime that is endangering lives.
Click to expand...
By endangering lives far more than the crime itself? Introducing violent to a non-violent situation?
 
If the recording is done safely and doesn't interfere with me doing my job, record away. If I have a car load of bad guys stopped and somebody walks up and sticks a camera or microphone in my face and puts me in danger, thats not acceptable. Otherwise, record away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top