One good cop

[logroller]

Mad props to Effington, IL for being constitutionally correct.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=njb6X-nmW2M

[jimnyc]

I'm all for protecting others rights, and I agree they should be free to do what they do, without being harassed or intimidated by the cops. But I don't see a point in "provoking" the issue as they often do. There's another guy that goes around various places with his carry permit, and his AK-47, and walks freely down roads until everyone calls the police, then gives the police a hard time when they attempt to ask him what he's up to. When and if you should be in a position where your rights are being violated, defend your rights. But to go around all over and "testing" authority is pretty provoking and dumb. But I suppose that is in fact their right.

[DragonStryk72]

actually, the one off-duty cop was correct: They are violating his 4th Amendment rights, and those of the other officers by videotaping them and putting the video on the web. As well, in many counties, it's illegal to walk along the highways. In fact, if a criminal were to spot any of those cops and figure out who they were from the video, these guys are responsible for what they do to the cops, morally if not legally. They say they're promoting the stance that Christians shouldn't support the war (Valid point, btw), but their video is just a chain of them fucking with the cops, and the one guy even says it in Effington "No police contacts for at least an hour", like that's somehow a bad thing. The difference in Effington, btw, is that they are in the street, aren't walking along the highway, and aren't purposely aggravating the cops.

Note that none of the cops arrested them.

[CSM]

It does make me wonder what those cops would have done had a camera not been present.

[DragonStryk72]

It does make me wonder what those cops would have done had a camera not been present.

Likely nothing, but people really don't like getting taped, especially when they're agitate, say like when a couple of guys are walking around purposely provoking you.

but really, that's the whole point of these videos, is to make you go "What if?". Naturally, we go to the "What if the cameras weren't on?" place, and our minds conjure up images of police harassment and such, but most the time, that's just not the case. It's just honest enough cops who don't want to be videotaped while they're trying to talk to someone.

[Nukeman]

actually, the one off-duty cop was correct: They are violating his 4th Amendment rights, and those of the other officers by videotaping them and putting the video on the web. As well, in many counties, it's illegal to walk along the highways. In fact, if a criminal were to spot any of those cops and figure out who they were from the video, these guys are responsible for what they do to the cops, morally if not legally. They say they're promoting the stance that Christians shouldn't support the war (Valid point, btw), but their video is just a chain of them fucking with the cops, and the one guy even says it in Effington "No police contacts for at least an hour", like that's somehow a bad thing. The difference in Effington, btw, is that they are in the street, aren't walking along the highway, and aren't purposely aggravating the cops.

Note that none of the cops arrested them.
NOPE!!! They are on a public road with NO EXPECTATION of privacy, if they came into their homes or a place of percieved privacy you have a point but once you step out your door and into the public sector your "privacy" no longer exist, how do you think its legal for the cops to tape you and the survalence videos in EVERY store and public place...

Courts say you have NO expectaion of privacy when in a public setting that includes roads and sidewalks.... Sorry!!!

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I think the only time you're in hot water is when you interfere with an arrest, or if your filming makes the officer fearful (I guess if you're filming just behind him when he is involved in a scuffle perhaps?). I remember reading about this somewhere before, in length, and most of the time citizens are within their rights to record.

I just wish some wouldn't do it solely to provoke. There's a difference between someone videotaping an arrest, or being pulled over, and someone who purposely attracts the attention of the police with the intent of filming them.

[logroller]

actually, the one off-duty cop was correct: They are violating his 4th Amendment rights, and those of the other officers by videotaping them and putting the video on the web. As well, in many counties, it's illegal to walk along the highways. In fact, if a criminal were to spot any of those cops and figure out who they were from the video, these guys are responsible for what they do to the cops, morally if not legally. They say they're promoting the stance that Christians shouldn't support the war (Valid point, btw), but their video is just a chain of them fucking with the cops, and the one guy even says it in Effington "No police contacts for at least an hour", like that's somehow a bad thing. The difference in Effington, btw, is that they are in the street, aren't walking along the highway, and aren't purposely aggravating the cops.

Note that none of the cops arrested them.

DS72, I'm surprised you took such a stance; disappointed even. Federal courts disagree and I posted the First Circuit ruling re: Glik v. in this forum-- having to do with video taken of police officer in the commission of his duties. As affirmed, no expectation of privacy exists in public, a camera in plain view is sufficient notice of being recorded, and reiterated a "core 1st Amendment interest in
'the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct')". The off-duty cop had the right to leave to protect his privacy, did he not? But rather, he showed his official ID/badge, therefore he was acting in his official capacity and reporting or recording his activities fall squarely within one of the core purposes of the first amendment. And to say, 'they're fucking with cops'... Tit for tat I say..seeing as how the cops are in fact provoking the issue, insistent on searching them for no legal reason: protest is protected under the strictest scrutiny, regardless of how 'aggravating' it may be. So far as 'in the street', there was at least one other scene in a city...'move along' I believe was the instruction, or as it was intended "get outta my town, we don't like your kind here."

[DragonStryk72]

NOPE!!! They are on a public road with NO EXPECTATION of privacy, if they came into their homes or a place of percieved privacy you have a point but once you step out your door and into the public sector your "privacy" no longer exist, how do you think its legal for the cops to tape you and the survalence videos in EVERY store and public place...

Courts say you have NO expectaion of privacy when in a public setting that includes roads and sidewalks.... Sorry!!!

So clearly, you never watch the news, Nuke. You ever see those pixelated blurry sections covering people's faces? Yeah, that's because they're 4th Amendment is being protected, yes, even on national tv. The 4th amendment applies in every single place in all of America, unlike you believe apparently. According to what you are saying here, 98% of America isn't allowed privacy.

[Nukeman]

So clearly, you never watch the news, Nuke. You ever see those pixelated blurry sections covering people's faces? Yeah, that's because they're 4th Amendment is being protected, yes, even on national tv. The 4th amendment applies in every single place in all of America, unlike you believe apparently. According to what you are saying here, 98% of America isn't allowed privacy.Uhh NO those are generaly minors (slightly different set of rules) or people who have been charged with a crime but NO VERDICT at that time of showing, really if the news wanted to they could show the face but with NO story to follow up on it due to the "innocent until proven guilty" MOST of the blurring occurs on shows that have a MONETARY interest in the video not news organizations unless you think COPS is a news show??

Also see logrollers post, he placed the legal ruling in his!!!

[logroller]

Yeah, I think the only time you're in hot water is when you interfere with an arrest, or if your filming makes the officer fearful (I guess if you're filming just behind him when he is involved in a scuffle perhaps?). I remember reading about this somewhere before, in length, and most of the time citizens are within their rights to record.

I just wish some wouldn't do it solely to provoke. There's a difference between someone videotaping an arrest, or being pulled over, and someone who purposely attracts the attention of the police with the intent of filming them.

Was that your stance on to To Catch a Predator too? Just make sure you're consistent.

I do, sorta have a problem when guys would go out with an unloaded handgun on their hip here in Cali,(which is now illegal); for one reason, what's the point of having an unloaded weapon in plain view? i do see that as purely provocational. Now, I think I should be able to have a loaded gun on my hip or concealed, per the 2nd amendment; but I see no point in having an unloaded weapon in plain view.

[DragonStryk72]

DS72, I'm surprised you took such a stance; disappointed even. Federal courts disagree and I posted the First Circuit ruling re: Glik v. in this forum-- having to do with video taken of police officer in the commission of his duties. As affirmed, no expectation of privacy exists in public, a camera in plain view is sufficient notice of being recorded, and reiterated a "core 1st Amendment interest in
'the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct')"
. The off-duty cop had the right to leave to protect his privacy, did he not? But rather, he showed his official ID/badge, therefore he was acting in his official capacity and reporting or recording his activities fall squarely within one of the core purposes of the first amendment. And to say, 'they're fucking with cops'... Tit for tat I say..seeing as how the cops are in fact provoking the issue, insistent on searching them for no legal reason: protest is protected under the strictest scrutiny, regardless of how 'aggravating' it may be. So far as 'in the street', there was at least one other scene in a city...'move along' I believe was the instruction, or as it was intended "get outta my town, we don't like your kind here."

So basically, you're saying that we should all be fucking with the cops just to do it, cause we really don't any crime more important? He was still off-duty, and they videotaped him while he was off-duty as well, so still caught on that one.

You say they have no reason, but you have a pair of guys who are purposely antagonizing the cops to provoke them to greater action, so that's shot to shit, plus because of their manner of dress, it raises flags. They weren't protesting though. Their specific claim to the cops was that they were trying to get Christians against the war, which was clearly a lie, since all they did in their own video was walk around and piss off cops. That's not protest, that's harassment, and there's a difference.

yes, cops dislike assholes who are being a couple of dicks to them for no good reason. Funny, but pretty much everyone wishes those people would move the fuck along.

[jimnyc]

Was that your stance on to To Catch a Predator too? Just make sure you're consistent.

I do, sorta have a problem when guys would go out with an unloaded handgun on their hip here in Cali,(which is now illegal); for one reason, what's the point of having an unloaded weapon in plain view? i do see that as purely provocational. Now, I think I should be able to have a loaded gun on my hip or concealed, per the 2nd amendment; but I see no point in having an unloaded weapon in plain view.

Don't watch that show and have nothing to be consistent about. :)

That's what I was referring to earlier, there's another guy who goes from town to town with his AK-47 and walks the roadways until the police show up and he videotapes everything and "shows them" that he knows the law and they're wrong. He's probably right too, but I don't believe provoking the police is the best way to make a point. And I believe that's what these other dummies are doing, and have done, is provoke the police to videotape them. Again probably legal, but they don't impress me being idiots and provoking responses.

[logroller]

So clearly, you never watch the news, Nuke. You ever see those pixelated blurry sections covering people's faces? Yeah, that's because they're 4th Amendment is being protected, yes, even on national tv. The 4th amendment applies in every single place in all of America, unlike you believe apparently. According to what you are saying here, 98% of America isn't allowed privacy.

I suspect those blurs are due to commercial interests. if I get out of my car and walk up to somebody with a camera, I have waived my privacy rights in their strictest sense. Not to say if he's making a documentary I'm not entitled to some monetary compensation, but its not a 4th Amendment issue. Cops, as i said, are government officials and don't enjoys that same right to privacy, but they get immunity for their actions if they're considered reasonably dutiful.

[DragonStryk72]

I suspect those blurs are due to commercial interests. if I get out of my car and walk up to somebody with a camera, I have waived my privacy rights in their strictest sense. Not to say if he's making a documentary I'm not entitled to some monetary compensation, but its not a 4th Amendment issue. Cops, as i said, are government officials and don't enjoys that same right to privacy, but they get immunity for their actions if they're considered reasonably dutiful.


Until you say the magic words "Don't videotape me". That's it, it's over at that point. I don't control your rights, you do. Cops do not surrender their full rights to privacy, and again, off-duty got his rights violated even after he asked them to stop.

And again, they lied about their reasons: They claimed they were supporting Christians against the War, but all they did was walk around and aggravate cops. Again, that is not a protest, that's harassment.

[logroller]

Don't watch that show and have nothing to be consistent about. :)

That's what I was referring to earlier, there's another guy who goes from town to town with his AK-47 and walks the roadways until the police show up and he videotapes everything and "shows them" that he knows the law and they're wrong. He's probably right too, but I don't believe provoking the police is the best way to make a point. And I believe that's what these other dummies are doing, and have done, is provoke the police to videotape them. Again probably legal, but they don't impress me being idiots and provoking responses.

well sure, the flip side being everybody thinks anyone with gun is obviously up to something criminal, so we'd better outlaw guns. Once you start slipping down a slope you can't just hit the brakes, you gotta tip the scale. The fact of the matter is the police have huge amount of power, and they, being human, are inclined to abuse it. If we believe the police need to respect our rights than We, as a citizenry, have a duty to exercise them. Yet they continue to cease more power and anyone who stands up is deemed problematic or 'provoking'. Its not good. I posted this to show the difference, that it is possible to have law/order and freedom; and quite frankly, if there were more cops that handled like the last one did, they wouldn't be out 'provoking' anything...they'd just be exercising their rights.

[logroller]

So basically, you're saying that we should all be fucking with the cops just to do it, cause we really don't any crime more important? He was still off-duty, and they videotaped him while he was off-duty as well, so still caught on that one.

You say they have no reason, but you have a pair of guys who are purposely antagonizing the cops to provoke them to greater action, so that's shot to shit, plus because of their manner of dress, it raises flags. They weren't protesting though. Their specific claim to the cops was that they were trying to get Christians against the war, which was clearly a lie, since all they did in their own video was walk around and piss off cops. That's not protest, that's harassment, and there's a difference.

yes, cops dislike assholes who are being a couple of dicks to them for no good reason. Funny, but pretty much everyone wishes those people would move the fuck along.

ROFL. The cops showed HIS OFFICIAL IDENTIFICATION AS A POLICE OFFICER; now reason with me here, if I was concerned for my privacy, I wouldn't go about showing people my ID...that's kinda the point these guys were trying to make-- obviously you missed it. Once I show them my ID, I have relinquished my right to privacy; and I can't be required to do so by statutory law, except by due process( ie suspicion of a crime).

They had a sign, the officer had no reason to believe they weren't protesting, so what was their grounds for suspicion of criminal behavior that warrants an intrusion into their privacy?Answer: none. Laws are laws. Either you respect them for all, or you don't-- Equal protection! Like the last cop said, "hey you're wearing an orange jumpsuit, kinda suspicious-- you guys seem legit, so good luck! That's the way our officials are supposed to behave-- with prudence and diligence.

[logroller]

Until you say the magic words "Don't videotape me". That's it, it's over at that point. I don't control your rights, you do. Cops do not surrender their full rights to privacy, and again, off-duty got his rights violated even after he asked them to stop.

And again, they lied about their reasons: They claimed they were supporting Christians against the War, but all they did was walk around and aggravate cops. Again, that is not a protest, that's harassment.


Right right, all they did was walk around with a protest sign, then when cops confronted them, they told them what they were doing(at least what the appeared to be doing, but not really) and refused to give up their rights-- aggravating cops, which was their real intent. So tell me if you think the last cop was aggravated by these dastardly tactics? What was the difference?

Well, first off--lying isn't illegal-- free speech dude. Protest as a ruse to uncover government corruption...is that a crime? Actually, I think, and most would agree, that uncovering government corruption would been seen as an essential function in a free society. I see you talking about all these things they did that you don't agree with, but NONE of those things are criminal. Regardless, did those guys have a right to ignore the off duty cop, tell him to beat it, i don't wanna talk, leave me alone? If not, then he was acting in an official capacity and doesn't have the same rights to privacy as an ordinary citizen. That's the established rule of law. For the EXACT reasons these guys did what they did?

[jimnyc]

This entire video/story would have been much better if they continued to badger the cops until one of them got shot. This way they would have proved their point about the cops and too much power and taking away our constitutional rights, but they would have also proved a point, which is why you don't go pointing sticks at people carrying guns.

And if you don't like my idea just above, go eat mud, I think it's funny and that's what I'm sticking with. :finger3:

[DragonStryk72]

They had a sign, the officer had no reason to believe they weren't protesting, so what was their grounds for suspicion of criminal behavior that warrants an intrusion into their privacy?Answer: none. Laws are laws. Either you respect them for all, or you don't-- Equal protection! Like the last cop said, "hey you're wearing an orange jumpsuit, kinda suspicious-- you guys seem legit, so good luck! That's the way our officials are supposed to behave-- with prudence and diligence.

So it's legal to lie to and harass the police? I didn't know that was legal anywhere in the country. They weren't protesting, they were lying to cops and harassing them, period. They are in the wrong, legal or not.

[jimnyc]

It's not always open and shut cases with videotaping the police either. Here's one that found thus far:


That Anthony Graber broke the law in early March is indisputable. He raced his Honda motorcycle down Interstate 95 in Maryland at 80 mph, popping a wheelie, roaring past cars and swerving across traffic lanes.

But it wasn't his daredevil stunt that has the 25-year-old staff sergeant for the Maryland Air National Guard facing the possibility of 16 years in prison. For that, he was issued a speeding ticket.

It was the video that Graber posted on YouTube one week later -- taken with his helmet camera -- of a plainclothes state trooper cutting him off and drawing a gun during the traffic stop near Baltimore.

In early April, state police officers raided Graber's parents' home in Abingdon, Md. They confiscated his camera, computers and external hard drives. Graber was indicted for allegedly violating state wiretap laws by recording the trooper without his consent.

Arrests such as Graber's are becoming more common along with the proliferation of portable video cameras and cell-phone recorders. Videos of alleged police misconduct have become hot items on the Internet. YouTube still features Graber's encounter along with numerous other witness videos.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076#.T01CjvUho4c

[Mr. P]

I think "intentionally" provoking an officer should be a crime. Something similar to "obstruction" of an officer. Seems to me that was the intent of this pair. They're "testing" for unwarranted responses. No?

Why not as a society shouldn't we just carefully monitor the responses by police in individual events on their actions, then determine (as we do now) whether they went beyond their authority, instead of "provoking" error? I see no point in "provoking the police to F'k up. But then I'm not a radical with an agenda. Just sayin.

[revelarts]

Yeah, I think the only time you're in hot water is when you interfere with an arrest, or if your filming makes the officer fearful (I guess if you're filming just behind him when he is involved in a scuffle perhaps?). I remember reading about this somewhere before, in length, and most of the time citizens are within their rights to record.

I just wish some wouldn't do it solely to provoke. There's a difference between someone videotaping an arrest, or being pulled over, and someone who purposely attracts the attention of the police with the intent of filming them.


As log has pointed out, and you agree it's everyones right to video cops and others on the streets. The cops in almost every case shown here are pissed at being filmed even before anything is said. It the FACT of being filmed that is stressful to them . The guys always spoke quietly and respectfully. the Cops were like, "get that out of my face" "turn that off.". No matter how nicely you pull out a camera many police seem to feel provoked or feel aggravated. it's THEIR problem not the peoples filming. They need better training in this area, or an attitude adjustment. The last cop was acting properly. He wasn't stress wasn't threatening there was NO NEED or excuse to feel provoked or aggravated.

Why should we assume the Cops are gong to act like jerks when they see a camera or a protester, or have someone checking up on their work by video. They are not above scrutiny and they should be as cool about a camera as they expect us to be about them walking up to us and "just asking a few questions".

And " if they are not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" Isn't that the lowly citizens are told.

[Nukeman]

as much as I don't agree with these types of actions it doesn't change the FACT that the 2 men in question were NOT breaking ANY law. Plus YOU DO NOT have to give your name to police unless you are being investigated for a crime!!!! We as Americans are safe and secure in our person and papers.. NO ONE has the right to ask you for your ID for walking down the street unless you are being investigated for criminal activity... PERIOD......

[jimnyc]

As log has pointed out, and you agree it's everyones right to video cops and others on the streets. The cops in almost every case shown here are pissed at being filmed even before anything is said. It the FACT of being filmed that is stressful to them . The guys always spoke quietly and respectfully. the Cops were like, "get that out of my face" "turn that off.". No matter how nicely you pull out a camera many police seem to feel provoked or feel aggravated. it's THEIR problem not the peoples filming. They need better training in this area, or an attitude adjustment. The last cop was acting properly. He wasn't stress wasn't threatening there was NO NEED or excuse to feel provoked or aggravated.

Why should we assume the Cops are gong to act like jerks when they see a camera or a protester, or have someone checking up on their work by video. They are not above scrutiny and they should be as cool about a camera as they expect us to be about them walking up to us and "just asking a few questions".

And " if they are not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?" Isn't that the lowly citizens are told.


as much as I don't agree with these types of actions it doesn't change the FACT that the 2 men in question were NOT breaking ANY law. Plus YOU DO NOT have to give your name to police unless you are being investigated for a crime!!!! We as Americans are safe and secure in our person and papers.. NO ONE has the right to ask you for your ID for walking down the street unless you are being investigated for criminal activity... PERIOD......

Just want to say - I do agree that what these guys did was within our current laws. I know they need not produce ID or answer ANY questions unless under arrest - I get all that stuff. I just don't agree with how these guys are going about it. People are videotaping arrests more and more, and more and more cops are getting busted as a result. THAT's the kind of videotaping of police that I can get behind. But starting out videotaping before they even arrive, because you know they're going to arrive, is just looking for a cop to fuck up so you can say "gotcha". It's natural instinct for people to not want to be photographed or videotaped by strangers, it's not an automatic that they don't want to be taped because they want to break a law.

[revelarts]

So it's legal to lie to and harass the police? I didn't know that was legal anywhere in the country. They weren't protesting, they were lying to cops and harassing them, period. They are in the wrong, legal or not.

Did the Guys go find the police or did the cops stop them. a camera ia not a weapon. why was the last Cop the only one acting like a descent fella. the other cops were wrong. NOTHING the people did was Illegal. walking on the road , holding a sign, holding a camera, even
checking up on police? When did that become a crime? It's not... yet. Nothing they did was wrong. We are not require in the U.S. to carry ID as far as I know. the cops just didn't Like being taped. They don't like being Checked up on. It's their Problem. Not a Legal one for the Protesters/undercover doc makers.

Cameras are everywhere and If they've got nothing to hide what's the problem?

[logroller]

So it's legal to lie to and harass the police? I didn't know that was legal anywhere in the country. They weren't protesting, they were lying to cops and harassing them, period. They are in the wrong, legal or not.
Wrong wrong wrong. You got your subjects mixed up-- the cops were in the wrong for assuming that someone's rightful expression of privacy is tantamount to criminal behavior- shame on you for defending these pricks!


It's not always open and shut cases with videotaping the police either. Here's one that found thus far:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076#.T01CjvUho4c
Again, see glik v; issued August 2011. If the camera was conspicuous type I've seen on helmets, where it sticks out; charges should be dropped or overturned.

[revelarts]

Just want to say - I do agree that what these guys did was within our current laws. I know they need not produce ID or answer ANY questions unless under arrest - I get all that stuff. I just don't agree with how these guys are going about it. People are videotaping arrests more and more, and more and more cops are getting busted as a result. THAT's the kind of videotaping of police that I can get behind. But starting out videotaping before they even arrive, because you know they're going to arrive, is just looking for a cop to fuck up so you can say "gotcha". It's natural instinct for people to not want to be photographed or videotaped by strangers, it's not an automatic that they don't want to be taped because they want to break a law.

"...is just looking for a cop to fuck up so you can say "gotcha". "
You assume the worst about the 2 guys. If they wanted the vid to look bad they wouldn't have included the last Cop. The ywouldn't have praised the last cop.


"...It's natural instinct for people to not want to be photographed or videotaped by strangers, it's not an automatic that they don't want to be taped because they want to break a law....""
But your right, most arn't comfortable with a candid camera moment, but Cops need to be aware that it's going to happen more and more and get used to it. No one says they don't like it becuase they are going to break the law. It seems that in many of the cases they were about to break the law BECUASE a camera was there and they didn't like it.


I work for a City Gov't in City Hall, Id be embrased if someone came into my office and wanted to video tape me outta the blue doing my job but , The citzens pay my salaery, I'd need to accomadate them, withen reason, even if they were acting like serious jerks. (which those guys weren't) Cops here get paid by the same people i do and are not above public scutiny nearly anytime. period. Nearly all of our on the job activity is a matter public record. How we spend money, what we produce and how we treat the public. We are public servants. A video camera is not an enemy of the police period they need to get a grip. And learn howta smile when they realize there's no problem it's not gonna hurt there athoritah. If no laws are broken they have none.

[revelarts]

Wrong wrong wrong. You got your subjects mixed up-- the cops were in the wrong for assuming that someone's rightful expression of privacy is tantamount to criminal behavior- shame on you for defending these pricks!


Again, see glik v; issued August 2011. If the camera was conspicuous type I've seen on helmets, where it sticks out; charges should be dropped or overturned.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/447S7oBAroc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/447S7oBAroc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

Were not here yet thankfully.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LQfdSBq7flw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LQfdSBq7flw?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[DragonStryk72]

Did the Guys go find the police or did the cops stop them. a camera ia not a weapon. why was the last Cop the only one acting like a descent fella. the other cops were wrong. NOTHING the people did was Illegal. walking on the road , holding a sign, holding a camera, even
checking up on police? When did that become a crime? It's not... yet. Nothing they did was wrong. We are not require in the U.S. to carry ID as far as I know. the cops just didn't Like being taped. They don't like being Checked up on. It's their Problem. Not a Legal one for the Protesters/undercover doc makers.

Cameras are everywhere and If they've got nothing to hide what's the problem?

The line where the guy is in the orange jumpsuit "Not police presence in over an hour, we're done here." They were not protesting, they were trying to screw with cops, and succeeded.

They are purposely causing trouble to get the cops there, then lie to them about protesting the war, all so that they can post stuff on the internet. As for why the cops hate the cameras, oh let's think : because they don't want to be on fricking Youtube. Or here's another one: because dipshits like these two keep fucking with them on purpose getting them out on a bullshit call for a "gotcha" moment.

Believe it or not, Cops have real crimes to deal with, you know the theft rape and murder, and while these two chucklenuts are getting their jollies screwing with them, it drags attention away from real crimes.

You know who else doesn't want to be on Youtube? Me. So clearly I have "something to hide" right? No, I just don't want to be on there, and it's my right not to be, which is exactly why people get to have their faces blurred on television, and not have their names released.

[logroller]

The line where the guy is in the orange jumpsuit "Not police presence in over an hour, we're done here." They were not protesting, they were trying to screw with cops, and succeeded.


If you're gonna quote somebody, at least get it right. He said "So we've been here...been here about an hour-- no police contact yet, so...Effingham Illinois obeys the Constitution."
What's most shocking about such a comment is the implication that police obeying the Constitution is somehow exceptional and worthy of mentioning.
Do you have any idea how many people just hand their IDs over to cops because the cops FLAT OUT LIE. Saying they have to, its the law-- when in fact you don't, because that's not the law. I could post a hundred videos of cops lying to people...but you know what, they're allowed to. They can tell you whatever they want really, make threats of arrest even, mention the years in prison you'll serve if convicted, talk of how they'll get a court order and how the charges are gonna get worse, how you're obstructing or interfering-- detain them without a shred of evidence to implicate the person in a crime-- because if they had probable cause, they could arrest you and search without your consent anyways. So the sole the intent of getting the person to consent to a search (which is what they do when they get the ID BTW) , is to get them to waive their rights as then any evidence found can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law, not to exonerate you. That's what they do... I know, I've had it done to me-- and its incredibly unnerving to be suspected of a crime I had nothing to do with, knew nothing about and feel as though I needed to comply or look guilty-- like I need to prove my innocence. That's not a free state DS, its a police state.

When those poor cops get somebody who doesn't want to get spoon fed shit, its construed to be provocation...because they're free and unwilling to give up their rights. Sure I guess so; why not just scrap the Constitution then, what's left of it anyway; after all, its just paper-- the state can just make up some new papers for us.

[revelarts]

The line where the guy is in the orange jumpsuit "Not police presence in over an hour, we're done here." They were not protesting, they were trying to screw with cops, and succeeded.

They are purposely causing trouble to get the cops there, then lie to them about protesting the war, all so that they can post stuff on the internet. As for why the cops hate the cameras, oh let's think : because they don't want to be on fricking Youtube. Or here's another one: because dipshits like these two keep fucking with them on purpose getting them out on a bullshit call for a "gotcha" moment.

Believe it or not, Cops have real crimes to deal with, you know the theft rape and murder, and while these two chucklenuts are getting their jollies screwing with them, it drags attention away from real crimes.

You know who else doesn't want to be on Youtube? Me. So clearly I have "something to hide" right? No, I just don't want to be on there, and it's my right not to be, which is exactly why people get to have their faces blurred on television, and not have their names released.



Sure it's uncomfortable but it comes with the job. If they don't like it they DO NOT have the right to take it out on the people who DO have the right to do it DS.

from the Glik case log posted


After hearing argument from the parties, the court orally denied the defendants' motion, concluding that "in the First Circuit . . . this First Amendment right publicly to record the activities of police officers on public business is established."



...The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.

It is firmly established that the First Amendment's aegis extends further than the text's proscription on laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, "the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw."....

....The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."...

...It is of no significance that the present case, unlike Iacobucci and many of those cited above, involves a private individual, and not a reporter, gathering information about public officials. The First Amendment right to gather news is, as the Court has often noted, not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public's right of access to information is coextensive with that of the press.
....
In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights. See City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461 (1987) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3837274703391855779&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_vis=1) ("[T]he First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers."). Indeed, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." Id. at 462-63. The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of "provocative and challenging" speech, id. at 461 (quoting Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2189837708321658845&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_vis=1)), must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.

[logroller]

Now this is provocative...and funny. I think a cop or two even got the joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7TzPEYci_w&feature=player_detailpage

[DragonStryk72]

If you're gonna quote somebody, at least get it right. He said "So we've been here...been here about an hour-- no police contact yet, so...Effingham Illinois obeys the Constitution."
What's most shocking about such a comment is the implication that police obeying the Constitution is somehow exceptional and worthy of mentioning.
Do you have any idea how many people just hand their IDs over to cops because the cops FLAT OUT LIE. Saying they have to, its the law-- when in fact you don't, because that's not the law. I could post a hundred videos of cops lying to people...but you know what, they're allowed to. They can tell you whatever they want really, make threats of arrest even, mention the years in prison you'll serve if convicted, talk of how they'll get a court order and how the charges are gonna get worse, how you're obstructing or interfering-- detain them without a shred of evidence to implicate the person in a crime-- because if they had probable cause, they could arrest you and search without your consent anyways. So the sole the intent of getting the person to consent to a search (which is what they do when they get the ID BTW) , is to get them to waive their rights as then any evidence found can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law, not to exonerate you. That's what they do... I know, I've had it done to me-- and its incredibly unnerving to be suspected of a crime I had nothing to do with, knew nothing about and feel as though I needed to comply or look guilty-- like I need to prove my innocence. That's not a free state DS, its a police state.

When those poor cops get somebody who doesn't want to get spoon fed shit, its construed to be provocation...because they're free and unwilling to give up their rights. Sure I guess so; why not just scrap the Constitution then, what's left of it anyway; after all, its just paper-- the state can just make up some new papers for us.

Oh right, because every cop is now "The Enemy!". So then we should be allowed to rape cause others rape? Steal because others Steal? Murder because others murder? Here's one: What if the cop isn't lying according his state's laws? Or, here's another: What if the cop actually believes those laws are on the books?

I'm certain you can produce videos of cops saying things that are factually inaccurate, but how many of them have actual proof of a lie? These boys perjured their own story. It was clear what they were doing. The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to fuck with, lie to, and harass the cops, or any other person in the US for that matter, which is all they were actually doing.

[logroller]

Oh right, because every cop is now "The Enemy!". So then we should be allowed to rape cause others rape? Steal because others Steal? Murder because others murder? Here's one: What if the cop isn't lying according his state's laws? Or, here's another: What if the cop actually believes those laws are on the books?

I'm certain you can produce videos of cops saying things that are factually inaccurate, but how many of them have actual proof of a lie? These boys perjured their own story. It was clear what they were doing. The 1st Amendment does not give you the right to fuck with, lie to, and harass the cops, or any other person in the US for that matter, which is all they were actually doing.

Not every cop, just those that suspect me of crime and feel the need to trample my rights to make a case. Not breaking the law is not suspicious. If the state's law violates the US Constitution, then I guess they can do what they must-- and a court of law entrusted to protect the Constitution of the United States shall hold them and their State accountable. Ignorance of the law is no excuse-- never more true than for a law enforcement official.

6745/9076 have proof of a lie. hell I don't know, some do. It goes something like this "Show me your ID. Do I have to? Yes. Is it the law? Yes. What statute? Um uh...." Cops lie, but unless they actually break a law, its not illegal. That's just it, how many times do cops lie and get the poor sap to comply-- once permission is granted, its a moot point. even if you tried to say you were coerced; its your word against a cop. Most people would trust the cop.

Perjury happens in court, not public. Those cops voluntarily approached those men, not the other way around-- so how are they fucking with cops? Cops send undercover guys in all the time-- no court orders necessary-- because a ruse to uncover an illegal activity isn't illegal. If you paid more attention to the video you'd of noticed the off-duty cop getting set straight when he called it in. Because faux protesting to expose dumbass cops who have a habit of abusing citizens' rights isn't a crime; not in that state, not in any state.