Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/2/2011 10:33:42 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
An innocent man defends free speech on the Boston Common
quote:

This is a story about Simon Glik, a man who could have walked away when he witnessed a group of Boston police officers punching a man on the Boston Common.

But, unlike most of us, Simon Glik didn’t walk away. Instead, he pulled out his cell phone camera and began to record the incident. As a result, Simon Glik himself was wrongfully arrested.

Today a federal appeals court in Boston heard arguments on whether to throw out a civil rights suit that Simon has filed against the Boston police. Now the court will decide whether cops can get away with wrongfully arresting innocent passersby in order to silence anyone who documents their misconduct.

The incident occurred in 2007 on the Boston Common – our nation’s quintessential free speech forum. Simon, whose family emigrated from Soviet Russia, presumably to raise their son in the freedom of Brookline, Massachusetts, grew up believing in the American system of justice. He even obtained his law degree with the hope of defending the system.

Given his background, perhaps it’s not surprising that when Simon saw officers punching a man and heard another passerby say, “You’re hurting him,” Simon didn’t just walk away. He took out his cell phone and began to record the incident. He stood about 10 feet away from the police as they made the arrest and never interfered with the officers’ actions.

When a police officer approached him, Simon said, “I am recording this. I saw you punch him.” At that point, the police arrested Simon – handcuffing him and seizing his phone. They charged him with violating a wiretap statute that prohibits secret recording (although police admit that they were aware Simon was not acting secretly), aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace.

A court subsequently threw out all charges against Simon as lacking merit. But the effort to intimidate him was clear. The cops warned Simon that, if convicted, he’d never be able to practice law. He was forced to put his job search on hold and to spend money to hire a lawyer to defend him against these baseless charges. And the police erased all but one snippet of the recording. Even after the charges against him were dismissed, Simon again refused to walk away.

Instead, he filed a civil rights suit to ensure that other innocent people won’t be similarly arrested for doing what most people would consider a civic duty – documenting public instances of police misconduct...

The hearing this morning – in the First Circuit Court of Appeals – focused on whether the police who violated Simon Glik’s constitutional rights should be granted immunity on the grounds that they could not have known that what they did was wrong.

No kidding – the police argued that their ignorance of the law is an excuse for what is a clear violation of an innocent man’s rights.

The police also argued that they have a right to arrest anyone who is video-recording in any public forum - including the arrest of television and other news media recording a public rally - unless the people doing the recording get express permission from each person caught on tape.

Victory for liberty and the right to videotape public officials
quote:

Hear ye, hear ye!!

The First Circuit Court of Appeals - the highest federal court for New England just below the U.S. Supreme Court - last Friday handed down a ground-breaking decision defending our right to videotape the police and other public officials as they engage in their official duties - including when, as in this case, the cops appear to be beating a man on the Boston Common....

In a decision that reads like an ode to the First Amendment as key to both liberty and democracy, the court wrote:

quote:

"The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles of protected First Amendment activity. 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..."

"Though not unqualified, a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."

Hurray for the U.S. Court of Appeals - and the United States Constitution!

_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/2/2011 11:23:46 AM   
tolovetolaugh


Posts: 648
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
That's great! Thank you for sharing.

_____________________________


That which yields, is not always weak. —
Jacqueline Carey (Kushiel's Dart)

I wrote a porn!
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3840531

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/2/2011 2:12:21 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
What a bunch of crap!
If you're out in public (the public domain) you're "fair game" for being filmed! That's already been decided in the courts. What the hell are those cops talking about?
How many times have the police used security cameras to catch perpetrators? But that's "ok?"
A simple trip to the grocery store can capture anyone on camera many times! Inside and outdoors in the parking lot. Then you stop for gas and you're on camera again. And maybe from the security cameras in a building next door.
No-one has the expectation of privacy in public.


< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 9/2/2011 2:18:04 PM >


_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/2/2011 8:02:32 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
FR

Has it been to the supreme court ?

T^T

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/2/2011 9:58:26 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
Right. However, in many states, it is now illegal to video tape the police in action.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/3/2011 12:13:50 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Right. However, in many states, it is now illegal to video tape the police in action.


Why? They're *public servants*!!!
Is it also "illegal" to film Firefighters and Public Works employees leaning on shovels?


_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/3/2011 12:22:23 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"Right. However, in many states, it is now illegal to video tape the police in action. "

And that's OK ? Any code or statute to that effect is so repugnant to any state Constitution that it proves the authors of it had no idea of law, or what law in this country is supposed to be.

Keep your recordings in private folks, when you REALLY get scared bring them out to your family and friends to mount the offensive. We won't win but we CAN make governing such a pain in the fucking ass for them that they will back down, Want it ? Respond to me. I would expect 10,000 responses but in reality I might get one or two. You just don't want it yet. You haven't lost enough. I have. I still have shit, machine shop, somewhat of a job, a shitload of friends and neighbors that wish I would stay. But I have lost more than most people have ever had. It doesn't matter to me anymore.

You own nothing. You have no rights unless you can play a complicated game with them, which is kinda dangerous. You need a permit to put in a new toilet, electrical outlet, stove or water heater. In many places you are not allowed to work on your own car on your own property. You can't fix your own roof without their approval and you can't school your own fucking children without their approval either. You have to go by their curriculum. You have to go by their rules, all the time no matter what you do.

Slaves.

T^T

< Message edited by Termyn8or -- 9/3/2011 12:25:39 AM >

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/3/2011 3:04:41 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Right. However, in many states, it is now illegal to video tape the police in action.


States can pass any law.... even racially motivated ones. Are they legal? Only the courts can say.

Just because there is a law passed doesnt mean its a constitutionally valid law.


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/3/2011 3:27:03 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"States can pass any law.... even racially motivated ones. Are they legal? Only the courts can say. "

Marbury v Madison clearly states that any law that runs contrary to the Constitution is null and void on it's face, period. However there are a couple of problems. First of all prove that this "law" is actually repugnant or whatever to the Constitution. There goes seventy grand in lawyer bills.

You notice that RealO and Hunky ain't here. Now see I know how to handle this shit. First of all on the phone you do segments, once the approach. Send it to yourself, Joe Schmoe or who the fuck knows. Every so many seconds, GET IT SENT. Then, bring the digital data into the clerk's office and file it, on CDR if necessary. They can actually exclude it from the evidence in the trial but they can't make it go away. If you just walk in there with it they can make it go away. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ?

They are out to take all our rights, and even if the system doesn't, the people who work for it do, at least some of them. They are on a power trip. Don't fucking kid yourselves. Even if they do help you, that aids their power trip. Plus the fact that they make twice as much money as you. Sure it's only a measely thirty bucks an hour, but think of the benefits, and all the free time off. If they shoot YOU, they get two weeks off with pay, at twelve hundred bucks a fucking week. More in Baltimore.

Quit playing games with yourself. You do that to be able to accept thuis fucking bullshit. Get real, and when you do, stay off the phones, stay off the internet (after while). Go meet in barns and shit where there ae no mics, no cameras, no nuthin. GET PRIVACY FIRST, the first amendment is dead, has been for years. Make your own first amendment.

Get with it.

T^T

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police - 9/3/2011 7:00:37 AM   
hot4bondage


Posts: 403
Joined: 7/29/2009
Status: offline
A couple of points to add:

Illinois has one of the most strongly worded laws like this. The amount of time, effort, and money it takes to overthrow it might be a good indicator of how free we still are.

I watched the video from one of these cases--I'm not sure what state--and the cameraman was yelling "Nazis" while recording. Don't do that! Be discreet, but don't conceal the camera. I'm pretty sure that some states' laws only apply if you're hiding the recording device. And, like Term said, if you do happen to make a recording that might help serve justice, get it, or preferably multiple copies of it, away from your phone and yourself ASAP! Based on recent cases, if the video incriminates the police, they might break the phone or take it from you. But don't run, don't resist, and don't play hot potato with the damn thing. Your words and actions will be analyzed at least as much as whatever's on the video.

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Federal Appeals Court defends citizen against police Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125