Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police 878
krou sends this snip from the Maine Civil Liberties Union: "The ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who faces as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. ... Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber's parents' house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber's case, 'To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'" Here are a factsheet (PDF) on the case from the ACLU of Maryland, and the video at issue.
If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
... you've nothing to be afraid of. So, I wonder what it is they're afraid of?
Its unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
Its unfortunate that he will most likely win (atleast, we all hope) and will probably end up getting some money out of the state for his trouble. But the thing is, the people that made those decisions won't be punished, its the tax payers that will be punished because now the defecit due to the lawsuit has to be made up for.
USA - Police State (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have nothing illegal to hide - but I still want to. That's what privacy is.
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
Streissand Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Btw, since they're probably not above suing over comments about this story also, SUBPEONA THIS! *flips off the screen*
Lol, just try and take me to court to make me prove you're all jackasses as stated (and make it a jury trial.)
Lose lose situation (Score:5, Insightful)
We're all one traffic stop away from total financial ruin and potentially jail. If it's not for something illegal today, it'll be for something illegal tomorrow, or simply something the police think might be possibly illegal.
Whether he's found guilty or not, his life is basically over.
If he's lucky, the ordeal will cost him thousands (maybe tens of thousands) when it's all said and done, and he wont get any of his stuff back. He'll have an impossible time getting a job, a loan, a security clearance, etc. with an arrest in his background. Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested, regardless of whether you were charged or found guilty, so he'll be making minimum wage at best.
If he's unlucky, he'll have a bunch of jack-booted "law and order" Americans on his jury who side with the police by default and just want to see more people put in jail.
Wiretapping.... (Score:5, Insightful)
America (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously doubt anybody will get more than a slap on the wrist.
This is a problem pretty much everywhere. When law enforcement does nasty stuff they're rarely punished. If a private citizen pulled a gun on a motorist, then broke into his home, kidnapped him for 26 hours, and stole this computers, there would be serious prison time, but when cops do this there are no real consequences.
I think that it would probably help the majority of decent, competent cops to do their jobs if the bad ones (and their superiors) were fired and punished when they pulled this sort of crap, but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink.
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:5, Insightful)
On a side note I can't figure out who is the biggest asshole involved in this: the motorcyclist himself for doing 127mph on a public road while weaving between cars and doing wheelies, the cop for briefly pulling a gun and immediately putting it back into the holster, or the Maryland State Police for going after the guy. I vote for the Maryland State Police, with the motorcyclist himself in close second and the cop in third place.
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I hope he wins his case, and then turns around and sues the state and Police Department for millions.
Being "tough on crime" is a joke in an age where nearly everyone, everywhere in our country is guilty of SOMETHING that could land them in prison. There is something fundamentally wrong with our legal system. It no longer seeks justice, it seeks to create more criminals because criminals are now a product that the state can sell to industrialists who build and maintain prisons. You make more criminals by making more behavior criminal, and forcing segments of the population toward criminal behavior - our inner cities are crime factories, and that's exactly what the state wants because if the prisons are empty, then more won't be built.
Who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the video is boring. Skip to 2:55. He did deserve to be pulled over, but not like that.
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
I agree, but it's more than that. They're authority to use force derives from our rights. We have every right to ensure that they are properly executing their duties (without interfering with said duties). The first amendment was specifically intended to allow for dissemination of information regarding improper use of authority. He has an affirmative right to post that video. At best the officer can claim the inferred right to privacy, which shouldn't be granted in this context.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:1, Insightful)
At what point does loss of liberty become tyranny?
Imagine If The LAPD did that to R. King (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine if LAPD pulled that on the person who filmed the Rodney King incident.
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's clear that riding a motorcycle at 127mph in traffic while doing wheelies is pretty fucking illegal. What the police department did about the recording is very wrong but that's a separate issue. The initial traffic stop was completely justified and the guy should lose his license if not worse. Don't make him into some kind of innocent victim.
Re:Its unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
The motorcyclist would have been 100% within his rights to draw a gun and shoot his attacker in the face. This police officer is extraordinarily lucky to be breathing.
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I'm concerned, he is a victim. He may have broken the law but that doesn't justify 16 years in prison or anything related to the video taping. Just because you break the law in some fashion does not mean you're free to have anything done to you. He should be fined, lose his license, or something related to his crime. All this wiretapping bullshit is getting a bit ridiculous.
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:2, Insightful)
But regardless - the way plea bargaining works in the US is a travesty of justice. The whole system is weighted to encourage it as well. It requires much less work and no aditional staff costs (e.g. researches) for a DA to negotiate a plea bargain.
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an honest question for you: Why the fuck do you still live in that country?
Honestly, a place where cops are practically untouchable, the justice system amounts to "plea guilty and do a few years, or else...." and guilt is determined by your average group of mouthbreathers with an extremely mis-placed sense of justice on a power-trip. Why the hell would anyone want to live there?
Re:USA - Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. You're crazy.
You've forgotten about the law of unintended consequences. Do you really think it aught to be legal for anybody you've invited into your home to plant bugs or cameras? They're there lawfully, and you're proposing giving them the right to record without being party to the conversation. What about bed/bath rooms? What about corporate espionage? Messy divorces? Foreign agents?
One party consent seems to be a sane minimum without a warrant. I understand the desire/need for two party consent laws, but they too have unintended consequences, and needs to be fine tuned (as this incident shows).
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:5, Insightful)
What the police department did about the recording is very wrong but that's a separate issue.
And that "separate issue" would be the issue at hand. The defendant has everything coming to him regarding speeding and/or reckless driving citations, but that's not why the ACLU is representing him, nor why he's facing 16 years in jail. In that respect, IMHO he is an innocent victim.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah.
What's funny is stupid/corrupt judges (in the sense of favoring expansion of the power of the government of which they are a part) have found some way to not apply wiretapping laws to warrantless Internet taps, yet recording a public servant right out in public is somehow a *wire*tap.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right in a way, and wrong in a way. Law enforcement officers hold an office of Public Trust. While it's correct that they are not *employees* of the Public, insofar as any member of the Public cannot order them about, they are still accountable to the Public (and all of its constituents thereof). Video recordings are a powerful means by which to ensure that accountability is retained. Thus it does have a great and necessary bearing on the taxpayers.
Re:Its unfortunate (Score:5, Insightful)
but whenever anybody calls for bad cops to be held accountable, police unions raise a stink....
And "good cops" start bleating in the corner about why they didn't say anything. Some crap about don't snitch on your fellow inmates^W cops. Well if the "good cops" started actually being good cops --rather than an accessory after the fact (and probably an accessory before the fact), then my faith in the uniform wouldn't have been lost.
But when good cops bleet on about what would happen --ie are intimidated... where do we, who are not cops, stand?
Re:Congress getting interested - write and call (Score:4, Insightful)
"Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts."
Concurrent Resolutions have no force of law.
Even if this one did, limiting it to "potentially abusive activity" still gives the cops plenty of wiggle room to justifiably arrest you and let a judge sort it out later... exactly the king of chilling effect we should strive to avoid.
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? If you were completely innocent, but had been indicted on Federal charges that would most likely put you away for life if you blew trial, or you were offered a two year plea deal, you'd actually gamble your life on twelve people who hear a very colorized version of the truth?
The cold facts: [alanellis.com]
93.6% of Fed cases result in a guilty plea.
75.6% of Fed criminal defendants are convicted following trial.
97% of Fed criminal defendants are sentenced.
82.8% of Fed criminal defendants receive a prison term.
That's not guilty defendants: it's ALL defendants.
Many of the people I met in Fed prison had either done nothing, or something so minor as to certainly not merit hard time. (I was a bit of a jailhouse lawyer..not much else to do.) I saw guys serving 20 years for making a phone call. I am not kidding.
As I said, it doesn't matter at ALL whether you did it or not. It matters what you can prove. And trust me, it's YOU that needs to do the proving, innocent till proven guilty is BS.
So, maybe you didn't do it, but you almost certainly will lose at trial. Yes, you''l be "right" and will have the moral high ground,..and wear khakis the rest of your life.
What if he shot the cop? (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
They should have some privacy (Score:1, Insightful)
Cops on duty shouldn't have any privacy. Everything they do should be recorded (except when cost would prohibit recording). As a tax payer, and therefore, the employer of all police officers, I want to make sure my employees are behaving.
I disagree with that to some extent.
Cop is on duty even when he goes to bathroom. Cop is on duty even when he sends an e-mail to his doctor (I'm assuming that the goverment offers them some form of healthcare, though I'm not familiar with how the system works in USA) about some problem of his. Cop is on duty when he asks that secretary from another department to go out with him. Cop is on duty when he tells a (perhaps slightly sexist or the like) joke to a co-worker... IE: They are workers and humans like all of us. I think we are only shooting ourselves in the foot if we try to rob them the amount of limited privacy that pretty much all other employees can expect. Even though I don't have anything that big to hide at my workplace, I would be calling my union if the boss tried to record every minute of my life there. If the union couldn't help (in my country, I'm pretty sure they could), I would find another place to work. If that wouldn't be an option, I would continue working there but be a lot more dissatisfied and angry about my job, life, etc... Which might not be what you want if my job might involve me pointing a gun at you!
What I am arguing for is their limited privacy even on duty because very few of us actually work nonstop from the time we go to work to the time we leave. We need some socializing with co-workers, breaks, a moment of browsing slashdot... Without fearing that all of that is recorded (Or worse: the records are made public and some "journalist" goes through all of them trying to find something that he can misinterpret to make it scandalous). Many people seem to think that public employees don't deserve that same time but I am fairly certain that if we took it away from their, there would be a lot of negative consequences.
I am not saying that this privacy extends to everything they do. Arrests, pulling people, over, etc. should always be recorded. If for no other reason, then because those are likely to be used as evidence in court. I'm not comofortable with "A cop's possibly honest, possibly accurare memory of the events" vs. "Another person's possibly honest, possibly accurate memory of events" being seen in court (and defaulting to "The cop is right")
whont hold up in court. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There's a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
AFAIU it's not the motor cyclist who's facing 16 years. Or are you going to argue that videotaping is an act of wildly and dangerously breaking traffic law?
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they are no more and probably less in practice, accountable to the public then you or I am. Cops and public officials are given greater lenience in violations of laws when they are performing their jobs. It's even worse with cops because you can't vote them out of office. Even you elected officials do not have the authority to directly fire them.
This "they work for me because I'm a tax payer" all stems from a romantic notion that politicians are worried about getting reelected and do not want to piss the populace off. The You work for me or the I pay your salary is little more then Hyperbole [wikipedia.org]. Union contracts protect most police from that kind of abusive influence and the politicians simply aren't afraid to piss the people off anymore.
And don't think for a minute that without you the government wouldn't exist, they pass laws all the time to piss people off. How about another tax hike, how about making driking and driving laws so strict that using mouthwash 10 minutes before driving to work will put you over the legal limit, how about the war on drugs and the laws against certain harmless ones like Pot, how about all the regulations that drive up the costs of consumer goods, how about the laws about speed on straight roads in the middle of nowhere with no traffic besides you and the bugs. Yes, you have a say in government in theory, but it's not working for you in any way.
Accountability is another thing. I never spoke against accountability, I only spoke against the idea of ownership of the government or who was who's employer. By all means, the police need to be accountable for their actions as well do the politicians. This is done by using the same systems as they use, the courts. Video taping simply makes it easier to show when they do something wrong. Public opinion doesn't really matter in courts unless it's used to influence a jury (which I suspect this article is attempting to do) which can lead to crimes not being prosecutable because of it becoming impossible for the defendant (in our case, a cop) to get a fair trial. An no, not matter how pissed we are, we don't want to stop giving fair trials because it will come back and bite you sometime too.
Many unanswered questions... (Score:3, Insightful)
An unmarked police car pulls a guy over and the cop jumps out with a gun... at what point was the motor cyclist supposed to turn off the camera - after the fact he didn't know it was a police car? We don't know the history of the person being pulled over, for all we know he was a person of interest to the cops (his name popped up on the computer after the cop checked the registration of the bike then the cop proceeded with caution by pulling out a gun - maybe the motorcyclist had prior "dangerous" convictions?). Regardless, they might have had nothing on him and are using the "make an example out of him" method making his life hell. How many riots, uproars have happened when someone has video taped a cop? Authorities want to get the message across of don't do it or else this will happen to you... Anyway, if the filming part was so bad why didn't they confiscate the camera? How did the video end up on the internet?
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize this is hard, but let me try and explain.
The traffic offense is completely irrelevant to the discussion. He isn't being charged and tried with doing wheelies and speeding. He is being tried and charged with violating wiretap laws.
It doesn't matter if he speeds, it doesn't matter if he does wheelies, if doesn't matter if he steals candy from the super market, it doesn't matter if he gambles on the internet. What matters is what he has been charged with.
This should be pretty fucking obvious.
As should that what is being referred to in what you quote is the extra stuff not the actual traffic infringement. Which should also be fucking obvious.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
The cop pulls him over, pulls a gun out of his belt, waves it around for a second or two, then puts it back in his belt. Sure, the gun was unnecessary, but if anybody was being a danger to anyone else, it was the motorcyclist. Can't say I'm overly sympathetic.
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:3, Insightful)
Your previous posts suggested that the one-party system simplified everything, and then when I asked on corner cases (based entirely on things that you introduced to the discussion), you said it's all basic logic and "this is not hard to understand", as if I was an idiot for not being able to immediately grasp the world's simplest law and all its implications that come about through basic logic.
Now you're saying it's just as complicated as any other law, and this suggests to me that the claim present in this thread's subject -- "The problem is Maryland's two-party law" -- is perhaps erroneous. Perhaps the problem is more that Maryland's officials seem to think that videotaping a police officer in a public place carrying out official duties is an infringement of privacy. I'm pretty sure even if they had a one-party law, they'd be able to find some other reason to throw the book at the accused.
It certainly doesn't help to have laws prohibiting people from doing things they ought to be allowed to do; but with such a complicated legal system, it's almost guaranteed that in any given situation there's some law that could be used. There's no reason they had to prosecute this guy under wiretapping laws; they did it because they wanted to suppress criticism of the conduct of police officers. (I'm not entirely sure they've succeeded in that goal.)
Or to put it more simply: if Maryland was a one-party state, would this guy still have been charged -- just with something else? I don't have access to any alternate realities myself, but I don't think it's a bold claim to suggest that they simply went after him with whatever they had available, and changing this particular law probably wouldn't have solved anything. The problem is more one of a culture of bullying and intimidation.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
By that logic, you wouldn't mind if we went ahead and aired some of your private conversation as well, right? I really hate when your argument is used in situations like this one. If you want to argue that they have no right to privacy because they're civil servants doing their job in a public space, that's fine, but don't try to argue the whole "if you've nothing to hide" line, because it can just as easily be turned around towards us.
Your argument doesn't address what actually happened. The camera man was taping himself riding in public. Somebody in civilian clothes decided to get out of his car while the rider was stopped at an intersection and decided to point a gun in his face without identifying himself as being an officer. The rider was taping in public. The rider did not know the gun man was a police officer when the cop decided to wave a gun in his face.
Are you saying a person cannot film in public because an undercover police officer might unexpectedly show up in the film? Your argument is either based on ignorance of the actual facts, or just plain stupidity.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cop pulls him over, pulls a gun out of his belt, waves it around for a second or two, then puts it back in his belt. Sure, the gun was unnecessary, but if anybody was being a danger to anyone else, it was the motorcyclist. Can't say I'm overly sympathetic.
Abstract thinking not being your strong suit, and all.
Re:USA - Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
Routinely, eh? Then surely you can provide a citation delving into what percentage of protests end in police intervention more than a simple arrest of a person or persons acting in a clearly illegal manner? How many times tear gas has been fired at protesters in, say, the last decade? How many times rubber bullets were fired?
There's an awful lot of paperwork involved with such things, so surely you must have this information since you're comfortable characterizing its frequency.
Or you're making something that happens rarely sound, ahem, "routine" in order to bolster a silly claim?
Eagerly waiting to find out which. So suspenseful!
Re:Lose lose situation (Score:1, Insightful)
I am guy from northern Europe, and I think that doing 94 in a 55 should be more than enough for taking your license away for at least two years. Behaviour that puts a risk on other people's lives should be minimized, and taking you licence away would probably dicourage you from speeding more than a hefty fine did.
And when it comes to the case discussed, I get the impression that the police is willing to go very far to punish any behaviour that takes away their power (explicit or implicit). Lets just hope that the intimidating effect of the court case is as far as the come.
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait. What? Why is this a troll. Someone help me out here.
The law AFAIK is quite clear: Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you? YES, you are within your rights to SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE.
IANAL, but am I wrong here???
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a working direct democracy, the government cannot pass legislation that'll piss a majority of the people off. Unfortunately, and that's not even limited to the US of A, a lot of people are amazingly stupid. But to get back to your examples:
Roads, schools, firemen and, well, every other public service need funding. If backed by valid reasons, few people will contest a tax hike.
You don't get convicted on a breathalyzer readout (not in Europe, anyways. The strange things you folks overseas do are, well, strange). You'll get taken to the nearest hospital, lose a couple drops of blood and with a bit of a delay you'll be on your way without a charge. Use an alcohol-free mouthwash before your next important appointment and you're good. And again, most people prefer a couple of mouthwash-related blood alcohol tests to hordes of drunk people in control (or lack thereof) of two tons of speeding metal each. Cars are dangerous. Operating dangerous machinery while drunk is deadly.
That one is quite sad. Basically it boils down to dumb people being afraid of things they don't understand. It's not entirely the politicians' fault, though. Check the voting records of, say, Switzerland, where public votes have been had: the disappointing turnout was some 65% of naysayers. Broaden your horizon: pot consumers tend to be in the 15-30 age bracket, and there's a whole bunch of voters aged 30+ and lots of them don't see a reason to legalize.
Can you spell Nanny State? A lot of people do and really like the concept of it. In any case, it's easier to just regulate everything than find a great balance; and it's easier to just nod things through than propose a better alternative.
As far as I know, none of the satellite-based have left their trial stages. Save for those, you're good to go: as long as you are concentrated enough to see and react to any speeding cams, patrol cars and wild life from far enough, none of these will bother you. It's quite logical: If you speed only as much as you can actually handle, you won't be arrested because you'll already have slowed down to the speed limit in the event of a checkpoint. If you couldn't manage that, you were demonstrably going faster than you can handle and should get ticketed.
In any case, speeding cams get approval ratings of around 70% in the UK. Speed limits probably even higher. This is not the government working against you, it's the government working for the majority of voters.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you've nothing to hide... ... you've nothing to be afraid of."
Thats what the police and government want us to believe because it makes their job easier, and their abuses of power are hidden away from the public.
It really is funny how the police and government cover up everything they do wrong, but want to know everything you do.
Filming a police officer should be completely legal. As long as they have power over us, and we pay their wages... We have every right, like a boss would, to review their on the job behavior.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:1, Insightful)
The guy on the motorcycle stopped and didnt try to get away at any time. A random dude draw a gun in front of him hello.. most people who think "fuck i upset a crazy dude hes going to shot me"
Just with that I might try to run for it, not knowing it's a police officer. Speeding is one thing and arguably dangerous - or not -, yet no will to kill or endanger anyone. But pointing a gun at you now that is a very clear direct threat to your very life. That's also why cops are supposed to makes fewer mistakes than regular people. Of course, since they have the power, it does not happen, they make a lot of mistakes and don't even feel wrong for it.
Re:Wiretapping.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The video makes it clear that wasn't the case though. Not only was it first-person, it was also being recorded for a completely different purpose and just happened to catch the cop.
I hope they're not trying to suggest that it's illegal to video tape anything in public ever because a cop might show up.
Re:Funny, the detail that is left out (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I personally think speeders should be locked up for life, I do not give a shit if this person goes to jail.
Fine, but if he goes to jail it should be for reckless driving, not for some trumped up charge that could set a nasty legal precedent that has serious ramifications for everyone.
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why your contempt for juries? It's the last line of civil defense against unjust laws
Because it turns out that they don't actually do that job. Judges regularly lie to juries that it isn't their job to stop unjust laws, and ill-educated juries swallow it whole.
Re:Its unfortunate (Score:1, Insightful)
And if the motorcyclist had exercised his "rights" he'd be 100% dead. And you know it. It's like a pedestrian who has right-of-way on a cross walk on a busy street....right and dead is not preferable to wrong and alive in 99.99999% of cases.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction: Cops should not have any expectation of privacy when performing any actual police function. Even "on duty" there are moments of personal time, whether taking a leak in the can. or having an afternoon delight with another cop in a back room. Even things like working out at the gym. As a taxpayer, you may well want to be sure if cops are wasting their time when officially "on duty" but off doing something in the back room. But a video or even audio recording of it, is for the most part, out of bounds (it might be admissible in court to counter a denial, if the matter gets there, but that should be for the judge and jury to see, not the general public).
Any police function, particularly when facing members of the public, are not private.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:1, Insightful)
The cop was in an unmarked car, no lights/siren, wearing plainclothes, and jumps out of his car with a gun drawn. It doesn't look like a traffic stop, it looks like a robbery or a road rage incident. It would have been a totally reasonable response for the guy on the motorcycle to floor it and get the hell out of there.
What this cop did was enormously stupid. If the guy had panicked and floored it, he could have gotten hit or run over. This cop is going to get himself killed if he keeps acting like that.
The appropriate response would have been to use his radio to call it in, and have a marked car make the stop.
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have any right to know you are being recorded in a public place, witness the recent case Girls Gone Wild won. Maryland's law will be overturned eventually.
Btw, you'll notice that many federal politicians live in Maryland. I'd imagine the original subtext behind this law was making it easier for politicians to accept bribes.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Said cop was completely out of uniform, pulled the gun out BEFORE the badge.
That is not acceptable. "I'm a cop" doesn't fucking cut it.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
He was out of uniform and did not present his badge. He just said "I'm a cop".
What stops me from cutting someone off who pissed me off in traffic, jumping out, drawing, and saying "i'm a cop"? My sanity. That's all, and not everyone with road rage would have that.
If this had happened to me, I'd probably be going away for a very long time, because my own reaction to this would have been to draw and defend myself.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:3, Insightful)
My largest concern is an out-of-uniform cop in an unmarked car (or not a cop car at all) drew his gun and only said "i'm a cop" - you draw a weapon without your uniform etc, and "i'm a cop" doesn't cut it. You have a badge for a reason. You have a uniform for a reason.
If you have a reason to NOT be in your uniform, you should not be acting in such a way. It wouldn't be so very hard to assume he was a road-rager coming to ventilate him. That's likely what I would have thought, and had I been armed, I would have been in serious trouble, because the dipshit wasn't wearing his uniform.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, the laws of the United States are quite clear. If something occurs in a public place (and a public street definitely qualifies), it may be photographed or videographed by any person with clear line of sight to that event. The exception would be if the event took place inside a vehicle, which most jurisdictions consider an extension of a person's home or corporation's property, in which case the implied right of "privacy in the home" applies.
The charge of "unlawful wiretapping" is nothing more than an attempt at an end run around Graber's rights. I hope the judge can see this.
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. I am, however, a photographer.
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it's true - I looked into it just about 6 months ago, since I've always wanted to travel to the UK (I've been to most of the EU). Second, the 60+% was talking about ALL taxes, not just income tax. You forget the massive taxes on gas, VAT, and the tax on pretty much else imaginable that's all added on top of the typical 40-ish% income tax.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of bashing someone.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
"His weapon was drawn before he announced that he was a police officer."
If Joe Citizen were to do that, they could get busted for "pointing and brandishing" the firearm.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
The cop is still wrong for pulling the gun completely unnecessarily. When he steps out of the car, the first thing he should do is flash the badge and order the guy off the motorcycle. The hand motions were actually pretty close to what they should have been, but he had the wrong thing in his hand. There are rules for when and why you pull a gun, and this is absolutely not one of them.
The state is completely wrong for charging him with a wiretap law. There is no way that a public street has any expectation of privacy.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
You weren't in error at all. Some people are offended by the concept of self-defense, but if your only option to instantly stop an obvious assailant is to disable their central nervous system by "shooting them in the face" that is what to do.
Some are of the belief that the victim is worthless, the assailant is the victim of society (weeps...), and that you should wait to be mugged or injured rather than shoot back.
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, the police are misusing the law to try to prevent the videotaping of police activity. This is one of the danger signs down the slippery slope to a police state.
Recently the police ganged up on and beat up a UMD student who it turned out did nothing wrong at all. The police lied and fabricated probable cause for arrest and said his beating was due to his resisting. Unfortunately for the police, their actions were caught on a cell phone video camera and used against them later.
The police's actions out in the open should be subject to public scrutiny. Unless someone can point out cases where a recording of police actions had some kind of effect detrimental to public safety I'll continue to hold this opinion.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Acting appropriately would be to tail the guy as long as is safe, and let the UNIFORMED police do the stop.
Some random guy pulling a gun (which is what the video looks like is occurring) and chasing someone, boxing them in, is grounds for JUSTIFIED SHOOTING of that person. Trying to get away is a much milder and very sensible response to what the aggressive asshole in the car was doing.
Someone saying they are a cop, does not make them a cop.
The cop is stupid because he let his ego get him into a situation that could get him shot for no reason.
Secondly, fuck your talk about traffic stops. This is not about traffic stops. This is about a corrupt police officer, in a corrupt department, backed by a corrupt district attorney.
Losing this case will result in more dead cops. When it gets to the point that what is what should be a big ass speeding ticket and loss of license instead turns into a trumped up charge that will result in life destroying federal prison sentences. Some people will just shrug, and then open fire on the cops.
Speeding is small potatoes compared to what this case could do in the long run. I know Slashdot is full of nearly autistic detail picking dumbshits, but come on, see the big picture for once.
And then post it on YouTube. ;)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
"In a trend that we've seen across the country, police have become increasingly hostile to bystanders recording their actions. You can read some examples here [nbcwashington.com], here [aclu.org] and here [findarticles.com]."
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder if anyone has explained to that cop that he places himself in danger by waving that pistol around before having identified himself. He could have been mistaken for a motorcycle thief!
Most are missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
While the ACLU document does mention that this police officer unholstered his weapon before identifying himself as a police officer, this is not the crux of their complaint. If I am stepping out in front of an unknown individual (his face obscured) on a heavy motorcycle, I too am going to want some form of quick defense. I am no expert on the rules of escalation of force for MD state troopers, but at worst the unholstering of the weapon is a training issue that needs to be corrected with this individual.
The ACLU is, instead, focusing on the use of the recording laws in Maryland as a form of suppressing speech; in my opinion, a much more important issue.
Most posters here just want to run a jack-boot-thug, social-feedback-loop rant. They are completely missing the point of both the ACLU and the slashdot submission.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, there are times when I do have the right to defend my own life against a potentially mortal threat. Only a liberal douchebag would presume to tell a person that they don't have the right to use whatever force is necessary to defend their own life. I know it may seem strange to a scared little puke like you, living in the perceived safety of his own kumbayah bullshit delusions about the world. Here's how things work in the real world, son: if you come at me pointing a gun you'd better damn well squeeze the trigger because you've got about 2 seconds before I put a couple of half-inch hollowpoints in your gut and let you bleed out as I whisper into your ear that my next stop is your mother's house, your severed head in my hands, to inform her what an epic failure she was as a parent.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
First, he's being facetious. But even if he weren't you don't have any expectation of privacy in public. Try getting video evidence of your arrest getting thrown out because it violated your privacy. It'll give the judge a good laugh, just as this case ought to - right before he reams the DA and the state police.
Re:Its unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
The cop is brandishing his gun. What do you think he's going to do when the motorcyclist reaches for his gun? I'll tell you what he's not going to do, and that's wait to be shot in the face.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always found the "to protect and serve" on police cars to be intensely ironic considering that they do neither.
Modern police serve mainly to try to keep the peace and to clean up after crimes. They come into most situations and arrest whoever is causing the most ruckus or is most uncooperative. They act like frustrated, tired parents who just want some quiet when they come home from work. Right and wrong mean a lot less then just getting everyone out of their hair.
Then comes the counselor act, where the cops show up after a crime. They assure everyone the that criminal will be caught (rare unless they are caught in the act of another crime) and clean up the mess a bit after pretending to care for a bit.
I'm sure my contempt for the police shows in this post, but I really do believe that as a whole we need more control of the people we allow to walk among us with guns.
most of the low speed limts are about cash and not (Score:4, Insightful)
most of the low speed limits are about makeing cash and not safety just like the red light cameras.
Re:USA - Police State (Score:2, Insightful)
But you can't go up to Dick Cheney and say "Fuck you, Mr. Cheney" [opednews.com]
Re:USA - Police State (Score:4, Insightful)
and if this is what happens routinely why did you have to reach back 40 years? Nobody is arguing that this kind of thing never happens, the point is that it's rare. By going to the Kent State shootings, you're supporting Dhalka's assertion, since otherwise you'd have a list of similar incidents from the past year or so.....
No Expectation of Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
The Maryland State Police is a branch of their State Government. Like all police, they take an oath of office that requires them to uphold and serve the citizens and their State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. How can a "servant of the citizens of Maryland" have an expectation of privacy in the course of his normal duties. Especially when he, in the course of his duties, videotapes every traffic stop that he makes and also files a report on every stop and arrest and ticket that he makes? Any expectation of privacy is a joke.
Not only should this case be thrown out of court on its rear, the District or State Attorney that filed this case should, at a minimum, lose his job for bringing such a ridiculous case forward to the court. At a maximum that attorney himself should be arrested and charged for attempting to defraud the State of Maryland and under a charge of _______ (fill in your blank: racketeering, blackmail, intimidation, breaking his own oath of office to serve Maryland's Constitution) for attempting to intimidate, coerce, or falsely imprison a Citizen of the State.
Re:What if he shot the cop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Video of speeding (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, posting the video *with* the speeds made it - IMHO - less biased.
Sure, he looks like a jackass for speeding, but at least he didn't try and act as if he wasn't pulled over for no reason. In addition to cases like this, there's plenty of edited footage out there too that shows the cops knocking a guy down, but neglects the 30 seconds prior when he was pounding at them or attacking somebody else, etc...
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's if Joe Citizen was lucky enough to not die from a rapid lead overdose.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
What stops me from cutting someone off who pissed me off in traffic, jumping out, drawing, and saying "i'm a cop"? My sanity.
I suspect all home invasion/murders start with "Police!" as they break and enter. Nothing like a complacent victim, and there will be no witnesses to add "impersonating an officer" to first degree murder and breaking and entering.
That's what we call an authentication system that's hopelessly b0rked.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone in plain clothes got out of their car and started to pull a gun right in front of my motorcycle, they would have been run over by my motorcycle before they had a chance to identify themselves or aim the gun at me. I wouldn't wait around to get shot by an unknown assailant.
You don't pull a gun unless you're ready to shoot, and if you're out of uniform and pull your gun, expect law abiding people to react like you're a criminal. The idiot cop turned a speeding ticket into a potential firefight.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
If I remember correctly from a previous posting about this case, the officer claimed he pulled the gun because the rider was backing away from the car. Personally, I'd do the same thing if an unmarked car pulled in front of me like that. This rider can consider himself lucky for having such a calm, collected response, though. He could have easily panicked and put his hands up. That would have made the bike lurch forward as the clutch engaged, which easily could have resulted in him getting shot.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "victim" was driving 127mph on a public road with other traffic around.
yes the driver was irresponsible and breaking the law. no one is arguing that. however, aiming a gun at the driver after he pulled over didn't help matters. no one was made safer by that action (quite the opposite).
not to mention he just jumped out of an unmarked car aiming a gun. watching the video, there was no indication that he was an officer of the law. the cop was obviously "pissed off" when we got out of his car (watch his face). not exactly the type of cop you want ... one that gets mad and pulls his gun when someone is speeding.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
From my perspective, the difference between point a gun at his face and keeping it pointed at the ground is only about 90 degrees of wrist movement and 0.25 seconds of action. It may seem like a big difference until someone that you don't know jumps out of a car in front of you and pulls a gun on you. Remember that once the gun is pointed at you, you're fucked, so if you want to defend yourself, you have less than a second to make that decision. In the video, it took 4 seconds of firearm brandishing before the cop identified himself and even then it was only verbal.
As a citizen, I am not allowed to draw a concealed carry firearm unless I am in fear for my life or someone elses. Otherwise, it is illegal and considered brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner. The police also are trained to act in a similar manner.
That undercover cop let his emotions get the better of him and acted in an incredibly irresponsible manner. He should have let the cop in the lighted police car behind him pull the motorcyclist over using flashing lights and the megaphone. There never should have been a gun drawn in that situation.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
Motorcycle dude posted his video, but did not otherwise complain about the police actions, as far as I can tell. Seems like motorcycle dude rightly deserved his speeding ticket. The real issue is abusing a wiretapping law to silence free speech, the posting of the video that may be construed to show the police in a bad light.
The issue is that any citizen should be allowed to tape public police actions and post them to the internet without being charged with a crime. Any discussion about whether the police actions in this cause were good police work or not is a separate issue.
And where do they find judges that will allow this sort of abuse?
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which laws? Sounds like you've read "The Photographer's Right" enough to have it memorized, but the video is not the issue. The audio going along with the video is the issue, and "the laws of the United States are quite clear" about wiretapping being illegal. What they aren't clear about is when wiretapping applies and when it does not.
That is, this case is about whether you can apply wiretapping laws to a conversation between a public servant and a suspect who has no implicit right to privacy (anything you say can and will be used against you, and is probably being taped by the cop's dashboard cam). I've seen "America's wildest police chases" enough times to know that many cops record audio as well as video, even if you are a private citizen in your own car, innocent until proven guilty.
I understand your point, but Photo and video laws don't apply to sound. Lots of cases have proven that having a video camera clearly visible and a sign saying it is on and recording, on private property, will get the wiretapping charge if it also records audio and an officer decides he doesn't like it.
Not saying it's right, it's clearly wrong, but "Video" implies both "video without sound" and "video with sound" and it's easy to get them confused. Pictures don't have sound so that part is clear. This is about the audio recorded along with the video, otherwise it would have been automatically dismissed. To be clear, even if a video has no sound, the police can still decide to charge a person with wiretapping because most people's video recorders do capture sound. The charge won't stick, but will cause an innocent person problems. This video had sound.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
And to that end, the only way the public can fight this sort of extremism is for people in states that act like this to all videotape *everything* and post *every* clip of the cops on the web. Overwhelm the system with so many tens of thousands of these cases that they can't prosecute them all. Real social change only happens when the people are willing to face arrest to sit at the front of a bus. Civil disobedience and all that.
Art-Patch-Artist (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
>The "victim" was driving 127mph on a public road with other traffic around. Who was placing whom in danger again?
That's not the issue. He was issued a citation and arrested for driving 127mph on a public road.
That's the punishment for that infraction. In this state you get arrested for going that fast. The police officer was *required* to pull him over. In Maryland, a state trooper is never off duty. They are required to carry a gun and intervene if a crime is being committed regardless of whether or not they are "on the clock". The officer did absolutely nothing wrong. Indeed, if he did nothing and ignored the motorcyclist, he'd have been in violation with his employment contract.
Driving 127mph in this state is a "shall arrest" infraction. That's why he was originally arrested, and it's justified.
The state's prosecutor is the one being a douchebag.
What he's also being charged with is wiretapping. He had a helmet cam on (in plain view I might add) which he was using to record his high speed adventure, and got pulled over while the camera was running. Chances are he forgot it was there due to the stress of a gun being pulled on him.
The state is claiming he's violated wiretapping laws because of this camera. In reality they got pissed because he posted it on YouTube. This is ridiculous. The officer in question actually performed admirably and didn't do anything wrong. I'm not sure why the state feels it's necessary to prosecute the guy for breaking wiretapping laws. That's the crux of this case.
Sure give him time for being an idiot, and driving too fast but you can't really, in this situation, prosecute him with wiretapping laws because he had a helmet cam on and forgot to turn it off. Where's the intent? The officer didn't see the camera mounted on top of the helmet? He knew the camera was there and didn't even ask if it was on.
The wiretapping charge is bullshit and is abuse of the law by the prosecution.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, it is REALLY stupid police practice as well for a number of reasons.
1. Innocent bystander sees a man pulling a gun and pointing it at somebody who is unarmed (no idea if the gun was aimed or not in this case, but ignore that for this argument). In theory if they have a gun they should be allowed to just shoot the cop, since they aren't identified as such and somebody's life is potentially in imminent danger. Good luck to the poor SOB who tries this, though.
2. An actual law-enforcement agent (cop (on- or off-duty), FBI agent, whatever) witnesses the same thing, and shouts a warning, and then if the unidentified cop flinches the wrong way they get shot. This is EXACTLY how the cops would handle a random person pointing a gun at somebody, and no doubt how this unidentified cop would get handled. Suddenly the thin blue line doesn't help out much.
Out-of-uniform cops are a bad idea most of the time in general, for a lot of reasons. Out-of-uniform cops pointing guns at people is DEFINITELY a bad thing. It is bad for many reasons, the very least of which is that the cop could end up getting shot.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Insightful)
Misrepresentation:
The cop didn't pull him over.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
You need to watch the whole video. The unmarked car doesn't just cut him off. Graber is signaled to pull over by a marked patrol car. See 3:00 when he looks back at the patrol car trailing him. It's hard to be sure due to the lack of audio, but most likely the reason he looks back is because the patrol car gave a short burst of siren. You can't see clearly that it is a marked patrol car at that point, but you do see it stopped behind him at the end of the video— at 3:34 you can see the lights on the roof, and at 3:36 you see the logo on the door.
At the time that the unmarked car "cut him off", he was already stopping for the marked patrol car. When there's a police car stopped right behind you, I don't think it's likely that someone else is going to choose that moment to try to carjack you.
There is no question that Graber knew the guy with the gun was a cop.
All that being said, not identifying himself immediately was stupid, pulling the gun was even stupider, and the whole wiretapping crap is just plain insanity.
Re:127 ON A BIKE (Score:2, Insightful)
A lightweight motorcycle these days is over 500 pounds. No matter what kind of cage you're in, I don't think you'd feel too comfortable with a 500 pound mass being launched at 127 mph in the direction of your cage.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:3, Insightful)
I mostly agree with you.
The officer in question actually performed admirably and didn't do anything wrong.
A plain clothes cop jumps out of a car, wields a gun, demands the rider relinquish his property, and delays identifying himself. Didn't do anything wrong? You're kidding, right?