http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2012/11/supreme-court-upholds-legality-of-videotaping-police/ Supreme Court Upholds Legality of Videotaping Police This Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocking the enforcement of an Illinois eavesdropping law. The broadly written law makes it a felony to make an audio recording of someone without their permission, punishable by four to 15 years in prison. In most states, like NY, only one person needs to consent, so the consent of the person who is recording it is enough to make it legal. Many states, however, including Illinois, have “all-party consent” law, which means all parties to a conversation must agree to being recorded before recording it can be done. But in all of those states — except for Massachusetts and Illinois — the laws include a provision that the parties being recorded must have a reasonable expectation of privacy for it to be a crime to record them. Since police do not have an expectation of privacy while they are doing their work on the public street, video or audio recording of a police officers would not be banned. The Illinois legislature took out “the reasonable expectation of privacy” exception specifically to make it illegal to videotape police officers. The Illinois law then became one of the most toughest eavesdropping laws in the country. It was often used to arrest people who attempted to record on-duty police officers and other public officials. Of course, it contains an exception to allow law enforcement to record folks without their consent for valid law enforcement purposes. It also exempts broadcasters. The lawsuit that led to this decision was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is planning a Police Accountability Project in Chicago that will involve recording police officers while they’re on duty. The ACLU wanted to be sure its employees and volunteers wouldn’t be charged with felonies. In May of this year, The Federal Appeals Court that covers Illinois, the 7th Circuit found a specific First Amendment right to record police officers. The Illinois State Attorney General had actually argued that the law does not prohibit free speech, it merely makes it illegal to record audio. The 7th Circuit rejected that narrow approach, stating the obvious: Audio and audiovisual recording are communication technologies,and as such, they enable speech. Criminalizing all nonconsensual audio recording necessarily limits the information that might later be published or broadcast—whether to the general public or to a single family member or friend—and thus burdens First Amendment rights. If as the State’s Attorney would have it,the eavesdropping statute does not implicate the First Amendment at all, the State could effectively control or suppress speech by the simple expedient of restricting an early step in the speech process rather than the end result. We have no trouble rejecting that premise.Audio recording is entitled to First Amendment protection. It’s the second federal appeals court to strike down a conviction for recording police. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (covering Massachusetts) ruled that a man wrongly arrested for recording cops could sue the arresting officers for violating his First Amendment rights. That decision also found a broad First Amendment right to record on-duty government officials in public: “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.’” The Supreme Court this Monday refused to grant certiorari (review) in the case. This means no opinion was written by the Supremes, the court just denied further review of the issue. Denial of certiorari also doesn’t necessarily mean the justices endorse the lower court’s ruling. It does mean, however, that at least six of the nine current justices weren’t so opposed to the ruling that they felt the case needed to be heard. It is now technically legal to record on-duty police officers in every state in the country.
Well I hope all cops are not shitbirds, even though that may fit a few. There have been three in my family, one FBI, one currently an OSP officer and another a City police officer. I would probably have to admit one might shine in your light.
As much as I hate to say it, the police were in the right and the fault is with the owner. However, just because the police were in the right does not mean that they did the right thing. The cop should have been more aware to the situation and the possible escaltions involved. He also should have been more calm in the face of a tense situation and been able to handle the situation without executing a dog. This cop needs retraining and possiible reassignment. Think about it, do any of you want this guys finger on the trigger during a public protest? The owner fucked up by not secureing his dog, as an owner of two pit bulls, I can say that if you want to keep your power breed dog alive then you need to be aware of every situation that you put your dog into. If shit goes down it is always the power breed's fault to any uneducated causual observer (ie charcoal filtered). Also you have to be concious of how a big fucking dog charging and barking at someone can be very intimidating, no matter how cute and friendly your dog is at home. I will also say though that this particlular dog was not vicious, if that dog was vicious the cop would have been very chewed up before he had a chance to get a shot off. Sad for sure, the video made me feel sick.
most cops are power hungry, small dick (or large vagina), bondage fetishists, who got picked on in high school because they had zero social skills, and never got laid. they also beat their spouses 50% more often the rest of them are pretty cool though
What was that dog? A Rottweiler I suspect. I shot one of them in the Jefferson wilderness area quite a few years ago. It came charging at me, my wife and a couple others as we were hiking in. I saw it coming about 150 yards out, I let it get to about 15 yard then it took the brunt of a 180 grain Nossler through the full length of it body. The owner was maybe 250 yards away on horse back. He was pissed but I had no remorse. I don't know what the hell the guy expected me to do. Protect yourself! It is what we should expect from all people. 911 just won't do.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836#.UdSXnNK1F8E Cops are stupid people. They don't know how to comprehend things and don't have any critical thinking skills. No wonder they're all awful at their jobs.
That video made me sick. I get that the police were defending themselves, but I would be pissed if I was the owner.
Looked like a Rot to me, and they can be big and powerfull and look pretty scary. They can also do a lot of damage quickly so if you felt threatened you had every right to protect yourself. Knowing what I know about dogs though I doubt you were in as much danger as you felt like you were, as the dog had nothing to protect and was probably just excited about being in the wild. In fact you could have even mistaken its charge for a greeting. When I was in LA I came across some poor girl who was crying and shaking in fear over a rogue Pit Bull off his leash who was just trying to say hi to her, I helped her out and when I left she and the dog were playing. However dogs react to situations they dont think them out, so you can put yourself in more danger even with a friendly dog by panicing and/or running. Even just feeling uneasy and scared of a dog in a friends house can cause the dog to "not like you", trick with all dogs is to act like your the human and they are the dog and have confidence in who you are and why you are there. Dont try and get the dogs approval, the dog needs yours. Given your situation I would have just put my girl behind me, stood my ground and when the dog got close shout in a low, deap, loud voice "HEY". When you act like your in control the dog usually just falls in line. That is above and beyond though, I dont expet anyone to know how to deal with a big dog so I always have control over mine. That owner was taking a gamble by letting that dog off the leash guess he lost that time.
I guess I can see that the policeman had to defend himself (although in a situation he himself created by arresting someone merely for loud music and a camera), but how about this shooting permissiveness working in both directions? I keep reading about incidents in which the lawbreaker is in some hard-to-reach spot, so the police send in their police dog to attack the crook. He shoots the dog to stop the biting and bleeding. That becomes his biggest crime of the day and doubles his sentence. In more and more jurisdictions, it's a special crime to hurt a police dog, regardless of self-defense. It should work both ways.
Here's a similar article. http://dogingtonpost.com/mars-rover-finds-evidence-of-dogs-on-mars/#.UdUKLqU9l0s
They took him prisoner and presumably were going to kill him in some back alley somewhere. They were menacing to say the least. Anyone's dog would have done the same. Pit, Poodle or Pomeranian, all will come to their master's defense. Has anybody seen this guy since the video? I mean, it's pretty ugly thinking cops would murder people but it is what it is.
As I said, it was the owners fault. I do not think any dog can be at fault for what it does since it does not have the capability to reason that acting aggresively strikes fear into many people. It is not my responsability to learn when a dog is and is not attacking or be comfortable with it.
Those same scientists found evidence of man made global warming on earth and intelligent life in La Pine.
"intelligent life in La Pine" I suppose I missed the hmor here or is there another reason for the reference?
OK! So does my Nephew, an Oregon State Police officer. I think of him as a good kid, but hardly the case anymore.
