RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


KenDckey -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/15/2010 5:52:52 PM)

I think there is a much bigger issue here.   if someone takes a picture of a sporting event and there is a cop present is it against the law?   If someone is taking pictures of the family in the park and a cop drives by is it against the law?   Should the news staff actually take pictures of news events without the written concent of the authorities?   At what point does it end?   I think that if this were the law of the land throughout the country that we probably would all be felons.  

This is total BS.   the cop should be suspended for pulling the weapon without probable cause.   The guy should have possibly shot the cop because he didn't identify himself as a police officer citing self defense.  I do believe that cops that act as this officer did will at some point recieve incoming fire.




thompsonx -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/15/2010 7:44:31 PM)

Sit down Ken...
I could not agree with you more.
Yeah there is forty feet of snow at furnace creek.[:D]


quote:

I think there is a much bigger issue here.   if someone takes a picture of a sporting event and there is a cop present is it against the law?   If someone is taking pictures of the family in the park and a cop drives by is it against the law?   Should the news staff actually take pictures of news events without the written concent of the authorities?   At what point does it end?   I think that if this were the law of the land throughout the country that we probably would all be felons.  

This is total BS.   the cop should be suspended for pulling the weapon without probable cause.   The guy should have possibly shot the cop because he didn't identify himself as a police officer citing self defense.  I do believe that cops that act as this officer did will at some point recieve incoming fire.





vincentML -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/15/2010 8:21:07 PM)

quote:

Protecting police officers is one of the main reasons for this law. Videotaping them puts them more at risk to be threatened with violence. Another reason is they don't want anyone to make it more difficult to prosecute.


I am a little puzzled by this statement, Brain. Do you mean (a) the State Legislature passed the Law to make prosecution easier. or (b) the Police informally are happy there is such a Law cuz it makes their job easier???

In any case, I have to side with all those who demand transparency of Law enforcement action. I agree with Butch that most police officers are probably good people and have sincere motives to protect the public, but it isn't difficult to write a long history of excessive application of force by police in this country. The fact that SCOTUS ruled in favor of Miranda is evidence enough for me.

And quite contrary to your assertion that videotaping police puts them more at risk to be threatened with violence (I think that's bullshit you plucked out of the air) the State would be protecting good cops from false accusations if all their actions were on tape.





Steelonme -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/16/2010 1:48:21 AM)

According to the news report it is against the law in maryland to get AUDIO of the cops. Hmmm anybody see that vid of the maryland cops beating up that kid after the basketball game? This is why they dont want to be on camera.




thishereboi -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/16/2010 3:59:30 AM)

quote:

Protecting police officers is one of the main reasons for this law. Videotaping them puts them more at risk to be threatened with violence. Another reason is they don't want anyone to make it more difficult to prosecute.



How does videotaping them put them at risk? How would having video evidence make it harder to prosecute someone? Unless of course you are trying to lie about what you say happened?




eyesopened -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/16/2010 4:44:53 AM)

I didn't see the actual Maryland law regarding police but there is a law against recording people generally.

"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it.

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
 
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear."
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/




FirmhandKY -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/16/2010 4:58:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

I didn't see the actual Maryland law regarding police but there is a law against recording people generally.

"Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as “one-party consent” statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it.

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as “two-party consent” laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
 
Regardless of the state, it is almost always illegal to record a conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent to tape, and could not naturally overhear."
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/


I don't necessarily have a problem with "two party consent" laws, although I think there needs to be a better way.

My original comment was that public officials in the performance of their duties should always be subject to recording without the need of their consent.

An extension of the sunshine laws you might say.

Firm




Kana -> RE: Plain Clothes, Unmarked car ... and a gun (4/16/2010 5:03:14 AM)

Yeah, steelonme has it right. The problem isn't the recording, it's the audio recording part, which is standard wiretapping law in most states. This is the same law used against Linda Tripp when she exposed Monica Lewinski.
A few thoughts
1-I am glad this law exists-it maintains privacy functions, especially with phone conversations.
2-That said, it's a real straight up bully move for the police to choose to push this case, and one that's stupid and giving them a black eye that frankly, they deserve it. I mean, raid the guys house, take his computers? That's just an absurd over-response.
3-As an MD resident, it is no surprise that this happened. MD cops are pretty damn agressive and Md State troopers are dickwads almost across the board. Even the other cops laugh at them.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125