Prosecutors And Head Of FOP Defend Arrests Of People Filming Cops

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    Indiana's own Radley Balko at Reason interviewed two prosecutors involved in the cases of people who were arrested for videoing cops during their encounters with them. Not surprisingly, the prosecutors are all in favour of arresting people who choose to exercise their rights. As an added bonus he also interviewed the executive director of the FOP. As you might think he was also in favour of busting videographers. This will not end well.

    "Police Officers Don't Check Their Civil Rights at the Station House Door" - Reason Magazine
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    I asked him about a 2000 Maryland AG’s opinion stating that motorists have no privacy expectations during a traffic stop. Cassilly replied, "Those opinions are just the attorney general paying some lawyers to tell him what he already thinks. I don’t have to agree with it."

    What?!?!

    But, but I've learned on INGO that the Attorney General is some sort of superprosecutor who goes about making prosecutors do push ups and run laps.:D

    How do you know the video hasn’t been edited? How do we know what’s in the video hasn’t been taken out of context?

    Know the sins of the preacher by the sermon.

    Amazing this moron shoots his own side in attempting to cover for them.

    Now, where are those cops who tell us that the police don't mind being videotaped?:D

    Cameras are the new guns.
     

    littletommy

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 29, 2009
    13,015
    113
    A holler in Kentucky
    I think it all boils down to the simplest, if not the most naive of reasoning. Why should WE be penalized for filming a cop, when WE pay that cops salary? I know it sounds stupid, but what is the problem these people have with keeping them in check? I think we all know the answer to that question. It's coming to a head, a very nasty head. It really wouldn't bother me to have a camera on myself all day at my job, then again, I'm not gonna be violating anybodies rights during a typical day at work. :twocents:
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    Public official. Public. All actions between PUBLIC officials and citizens are by nature, PUBLIC.

    If the government may record you, AND IT CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU TO DEPRIVE YOU OF LIFE AND LIBERTY , but if you record them TO PRODUCE EXONERATING EVIDENCE it becomes a crime, that is tyranny.

    "...and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you...you may know that your society is doomed." Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    Cops who have trouble with having their actions in a position of authority recorded are IMO inherently untrustworthy and have no business as police officers.

    Prosecutors who don't want video evidence have drank the kool-aid and sold out on their oath to pursue justice.

    The head of the FOP is bathing in the kool-aid and might possibly die if he ever gets out of it if he thinks there are only 10 cases a year where video catches a cop lying or misbehaving.

    Dross says it well. It is too bad the voters in these states seem to embrace tyranny.

    Best,


    Joe
     

    christman

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 27, 2010
    1,355
    36
    Terra Haute
    As long as you don't get in the way and jeopardize the situation in any way, shape, or form.. I think filming is fine. But of course.. Pro's for both sides of the argument. Because there are always gonna be some crooked cops out there and there are always gonna be jackasses who want to stick their noses where they don't belong just to hinder police work from happening. Chalk another one up to no one wins...
     

    lashicoN

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 2, 2009
    2,130
    38
    North
    As long as you don't get in the way and jeopardize the situation in any way, shape, or form.. I think filming is fine. But of course.. Pro's for both sides of the argument. Because there are always gonna be some crooked cops out there and there are always gonna be jackasses who want to stick their noses where they don't belong just to hinder police work from happening. Chalk another one up to no one wins...

    As long as you don't get in the way or jeopardize the situation in any way, shape or form, what are the pro's for banning the filming of police officers?
     

    christman

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 27, 2010
    1,355
    36
    Terra Haute
    As long as you don't get in the way or jeopardize the situation in any way, shape or form, what are the pro's for banning the filming of police officers?


    You mean like having to push past people with vid cameras rubber necking to get to hurt individuals in need of medical help and not TMZ? Or to chase after a bad guy tha already has a head start? Or any other number of things along the same lines? Im not saying banning them all. Reread. As long as they don't get in the way of them doing their job. Just like any other person that would obstruct in any way the officer doing their job. Film all you want IMO, just dont get in their physical way. If there is a discrepancy later on. Turn it into the court.

    Im all for every car and every officer being taped/ mic'd up to defend their duty as well. That way we have both sides of the video. I would just hate to see someone lose a life because an officer is trying to get past some jackass with a camera instead of saving a life.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Cops who have trouble with having their actions in a position of authority recorded are IMO inherently untrustworthy and have no business as police officers.

    How about the prosecutors that fought tooth and nail against IRE 617?

    Are they untrustworthy? Do they have business as prosecutors?
     

    lashicoN

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 2, 2009
    2,130
    38
    North
    As long as you don't get in the way or jeopardize the situation in any way, shape or form, what are the pro's for banning the filming of police officers?

    You mean like having to push past people with vid cameras rubber necking to get to hurt individuals in need of medical help and not TMZ? Or to chase after a bad guy tha already has a head start? Or any other number of things along the same lines? Im not saying banning them all. Reread.

    I believe you need to reread, sir.
     

    downzero

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 16, 2010
    2,965
    36
    As long as you don't get in the way and jeopardize the situation in any way, shape, or form.. I think filming is fine. But of course.. Pro's for both sides of the argument. Because there are always gonna be some crooked cops out there and there are always gonna be jackasses who want to stick their noses where they don't belong just to hinder police work from happening. Chalk another one up to no one wins...

    There are not "both sides" to this argument.

    There are several constitutional rights implicated by government's attempt to ban filming of police officers during the performance of their duties. And there's no way in hell that the government could ever meet the burden it'd have to meet in order to defend these statutes.

    In other words, it's a sure loser. It is unquestionably unconstitutional for any legislature to enact such a statute.

    It also seems that you're opposed to the public being involved in and scrutinizing your work. This is nonsense. Part of the reason that government is so inefficient at doing anything is this sort of attitude.

    Oh and possessives are not plurals.

    A friend of mine is currently defending against a felony charge in Massachusetts for this. Of course he will win, but it's going to be tough.
     

    lashicoN

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 2, 2009
    2,130
    38
    North
    There are not "both sides" to this argument.

    There are several constitutional rights implicated by government's attempt to ban filming of police officers during the performance of their duties. And there's no way in hell that the government could ever meet the burden it'd have to meet in order to defend these statutes.

    In other words, it's a sure loser. It is unquestionably unconstitutional for any legislature to enact such a statute.

    It also seems that you're opposed to the public being involved in and scrutinizing your work. This is nonsense. Part of the reason that government is so inefficient at doing anything is this sort of attitude.

    Oh and possessives are not plurals.

    A friend of mine is currently defending against a felony charge in Massachusetts for this. Of course he will win, but it's going to be tough.

    That's terrible, man. Massachusetts, the first colony to tell England to **** off is behind this, what a 180 that state has pulled over the years. A felony charge! That's insane!? Do you have any details for us?
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    If someone is interfering, charge them with obstruction. No need to ban the filming.

    That's ridiculous. You don't understand the first thing about law-making, do you? Why punish the actual bad behavior of the few when you can restrict the freedom of everyone?

    Also, every time something bad occurs, it illustrates the need for new laws. If people break the law, it means the existing laws are insufficient and therefore more need to be added.

    Ideally, we'll have enough statutes so that everyone can be charged with a multitude of offenses at any given moment. That way the police and prosecutors can decide who to bust and convict based on their sound judgement, rather than being bound by all those pesky laws, and all those bottom-feeding, scumbag, dirt-crawling, sleazy defense lawyers.
     

    Fargo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Mar 11, 2009
    7,575
    63
    In a state of acute Pork-i-docis
    How about the prosecutors that fought tooth and nail against IRE 617?

    Are they untrustworthy? Do they have business as prosecutors?

    No they are not inherently untrustworthy, you are comparing apples to oranges.

    C'mon Kirk, I think we both agree there is a difference between banning recording and requiring recording.

    I personally like IRE 617 but opposing it is in no way analagous to making it a illegal for a citizen to record police activities.

    One makes citizens into criminals, the other gives a proceedural evidentiary remedy if the police don't follow it.

    They are not the same thing.



    Joe
     
    Last edited:
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jul 27, 2010
    1,332
    38
    Galveston
    My uncle in Kokomo saw police arresting one of his neighbors. My uncle was standing on his front porch, just looking. He never said a word, didn't have a camera. The officers told him to go inside his house or they were going to arrest him. If they are "to protect and serve" comments like that would never happen. It does seem rather tyrannous.
     
    Top Bottom