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?
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.
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: (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, Interesting)
I'm sure that the founding fathers would have had an amendment of the constitution that guaranteed against what is going on right now.
People should also focus on how unnecessarily dangerous that traffic stop was.
Why did off-duty officer feel it was necessary to endanger his own life, the motorcyclist and the life of the motorists in the nearby vehicles? His weapon was drawn before he announced that he was a police officer. Somebody who would have chosen fight over flight could have caused a serious altercation. IANAPO, but why couldn't the officer have recorded the details of this obvious lawbreaker and reported it to a marked unit to take care of traffic violations?
I'm hoping there are other details I don't know about, but the video evidence seems to indicate an investigation of the officer's conduct would be prudent.
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:4, Informative)
People should also focus on how unnecessarily dangerous that traffic stop was.
Why did off-duty officer feel it was necessary to endanger his own life, the motorcyclist and the life of the motorists in the nearby vehicles?
The "victim" was driving 127mph on a public road with other traffic around. Who was placing whom in danger again?
(and he wasn't driving a Toyota, either)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
Himself. Motorcycles have a lot of speed, high acceleration and maneuverability, little mass, and very little between the rider and the road. If he'd met another vehicle at 127mph, the other vehicle would be operable with a dent, and this video would've ended with road pizza.
Stupid driving? Extremely. Dangerous to those around him? Not really.
Here in my state, what the cop did would be called 'threatening with a deadly weapon'.
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)
>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:5, Insightful)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's a slam-dunk defense right there! If the car behind him was recording, the helmet recording is completely moot, because the officer knew he was on tape. Yes?
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Informative)
I did both. I'm referring to the one behind the motorcycle, which you clearly saw when you did what you're assuming I didn't do. Honest mistake to make, no apology necessary. :)
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Informative)
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: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: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.
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.
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:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
A few links:
Blagojevich judge, attorney clash; jury sent home [sj-r.com]
Judge accused of fixing ticket steps down [sj-r.com]
Brunton resigns as Macoupin County associate judge [sj-r.com]
Chicago alderman pleads guilty in corruption case [sj-r.com]
State trooper who caused deadly wreck resigns [sj-r.com]
Assistant state's attorney resigns after mishandling case [sj-r.com]
Our Opinion: Boone must resign as coroner [sj-r.com]
Galesburg police officer facing felony charges [sj-r.com]
Grandview leader plans to fire police chief [sj-r.com]
Re: (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: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: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:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:5, Interesting)
He also drew his gun while in the car, and brandished it at the guy before identifying himself as a police officer.
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: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: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)
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: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:5, Interesting)
Lie:
It wasn't 82.
The video clearly states 69 mph on the cop pass.
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.
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:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just fyi, Americans have very little right to privacy when their in a public place, witness the recent lawsuit Girls Gone Wild won. ACLU will win this case either directly, if the judge follows precedent, or on appeal, if this judge is corrupt.
We'd prefer the police department ended up paying Anthony Graber some settlement for malicious prosecution of course, but who knows.
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.
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: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: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:4, Informative)
The undercover trooper threatened the rider twice "get off the bike", "get off the bike" and only identified himself (without showing any identification) as State Police when he'd got up to the bike.
Surely in all the time they were following the bike, he'd be able to put his badge on somewhere visible, like on a lanyard around his neck, or clipped to his jacket.
The first words out of the state troopers mouth when he exited the vehicle should have been "State Police, get off the bike".
Identification first - to show jurisdiction - and then the orders.
A sensible cop would have taken him down to the station, got a copy of the video footage and then used that to prosecute the guy.
The police in the UK have used YouTube video as evidence before now on charging people for dangerous driving - the biker had a distinctive jacket which they traced. As it is, this idiot is likely to get off the charges due to incompetency by the cops.
Re:If you've nothing to hide... (Score:4, Informative)
Whoa... hold on there.
"Point a gun in his face" and "wave a gun" is a long way from "draw a gun and keep it pointed at the ground". You are exaggerating.
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, Informative)
Anything you say, can and will be used against you - it's that simple. Spend an hour on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc [youtube.com]
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.
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: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.
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: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: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: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?
The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The problem is Maryland's two-party law (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, if you live in a two party state, you need to get on your representatives to change the law. The problem is just as this illustrates: EVERYONE involved in a conversation has to be informed and often to consent to the recording. If not, it is illegal. While obviously it is the easiest for the police to abuse this, normal citizens can too. You see a gang banger beating the crap out of someone, you covertly film it, his attorney presses to have you criminally charged. Or you have a boss who screams racial slurs at people your record that on a tape recorder and then the boss find out and has you charged.
A one party system is a much better way to go. That means one person in a conversation , the person recording, has to be aware a recording is being made. Nobody else needs to be told. This means you can't just record anything, you can't sneak cameras in to your neighbour's house, but you can put them in your own. You can't place a tap on a random phone but you can record your own calls, and so on. You can record things you are involved in (such as having a camera on your person), property you own, etc.
Do that, and then police, or anyone else, can't pull this shit.
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: (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 thi
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I like to know when I'm being recorded, thank you very much. The problem here is the ridiculous idea that a police officer in a public place has the same right to privacy as two people involved in a private telephone conversation. 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.
The motorcyclist did touch 127 earlier (before the first, marked, cop car) but he hit 86 (or so) after passing the plain-clothes car, which is presumably why they decided to pull him. Watching the video I don't really see anything he did as particularly dangerous, though there was obviously some excessive speed and popping the (well controlled) wheelie was perhaps a bit foolish. The "weaving" thru the traffic is called filtering in the UK and is legal, so I really have no problem with that - indeed he seem
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.
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.
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: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: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:There's a difference (Score:5, Informative)
YUIW:
Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle on Interstate 95, and was
confronted by a plainclothes Maryland State Police trooper as he came to a stop at an
exit. Graber had a video camera prominently mounted on his helmet to record his ride,
and the camera recorded the officer's actions and statements at the outset of the
encounter
However it shouldn't make any difference. Just because someone is guilty of X doesn't make him guilty of Y - each case should be decided on its own merits. This is why many jurisdictions don't reveal a defendants previous offenses to the jury.
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: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:Lose lose situation (Score:5, Interesting)
Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested...
In all the countries i live in, you can answer no to such a question regardless (its also illegal to ask it in the first place). Only the police have the information and its not public and it will not be on your criminal record.
Ironically having a record in the countries i live is also not such a death warrant for jobs either. Generally people are prepared to believe you turned over a new leaf--even if its just about a book of new leafs.
But its not all peaches and sunshine. In particular if it goes to trial, that is a matter of public record. One guy got news headlines that he knocked up a little girl and was a dirty pedo, with a "unrelated" picture next to his mug shot of 5year old girl playing in a new playground on the front page. He was fully acquitted since the girl in question was 15 and he meet her in a bar (drinking age back then was 20) and she acted 20 claiming to have a office job etc. The Judge/jury said there was no way the defendant could have reasonably expected that she was underage.
It didn't matter. In the end the fully acquitted and innocent guy had to change his name and move countries.
So I do agree. There is a very real social cost with an arrest, one that cops generally don't pay. And they wonder why so many of us don't respect the uniform.
Dashcams (Score:5, Informative)
16 years?! (Score:3, Informative)
You could kill someone and get less than that... (as long as the person you kill isn't a cop)
Re:16 years?! (Score:4, Interesting)
Wiretapping.... (Score:5, Insightful)
America (Score:3, Insightful)
Right to profit (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny how when a multinational Internet search and advertising corporation gets caught doing a wifi traffic stop, its a mistake.
No servers confiscated
These cases catch hooks and miss exemptions (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually read an article about issues like this, and it seems different states have different wording in their wiretapping statutes. In some states, the audio part of the recording is what's illegal (many cellphones and pocket cameras record audio when they record video with no way to turn the microphone off). In other states, there's an exemption if it's obvious to all parties that what's happening is being recorded (local Channel 5 reporters with 50-pound cameras talking into a huge mic.) or if it's taking place in a public area (no privacy in public, remember?) but it seems judges are ignoring the public area exemption in cases like these.
If you have such a video, submit it to your local news station with a note requesting anonymity, or use a Youtube account created and accessed via TOR. If the police confiscate your camera/phone, you can sue and successfully get it back.
One thing I do wonder: how is it not a violation for cops to have dashboard-mounted cameras that record audio and video constantly, yet a brief cellphone video of a pulled-over cop is a violation.
"Facing" and serving are very different things... (Score:5, Informative)
What Graber filmed was called a Terry Stop [wikipedia.org] and the cop is able to search you without a warrant within your "wingspan" to check for weapons that may threaten him or other people. There are a lot of laws that cops often break on Terry Stops. My car was searched on my own property under the guise of a Terry Stop, which of course is wildly illegal, but I digress.
What Graber is "facing" is a maximum..he will never serve it unless he decides to roll the dice with a jury, blows trial and the judge sentences him to the maximum. Since the ACLU is involved, you can bet that will never happen.
But States and more often, the Feds will indict you for offenses that carry insane sentences in order to convince you to plead out, as the vast majority of people do. I did. I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. If I went to trial and lost on one single count, I would have done fifteen years, mandatory. (No parole in feds, BTW...you do 87.5%) I signed for five years, did 52 months.
Now, would you have fought? Really? Many people say they would, but it's a lot different when you are considering giving your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. When you realize that the whole system is set up to plead out 95+% of cases and do anything possible to convince you to not go in front of a jury, the average person has almost no chance in the system as it is set up. You didn't do it? That doesn't matter. It's what you can PROVE to a jury. And most of the time, the Government has much better lawyers and resources, so Graban is actually lucky...he won't serve a day, IMVHO.
CSI, Law and Order are worse than misinformation..they are propaganda, brainwashing us into thinking the system is fair and equal. It isn't. Graber is lucky that his case has publicity value. He may be "facing" sixteen years, but he'll never serve any.
But we aren't all lucky. We are indeed one Terry stop away from ruin. Be careful.
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:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:5, Informative)
I've looked into it, not that the 60+% taxes really make it appealing.......but when you're unemployed, you look at all options.
60% taxes, where? I would say, that the most taxing countries (France for instance), get at most 50%. But look at it in another way, yes, you pay 50% taxes, but that comes with UNIVERSAL health care, real rights to the ones that get unemployed, children support, practically FREE education all the way until the end of college (ok, in some countries you have to pay like €1000 per year when you are in the University, but in some other, they actually pay you to go to University, although it's just something like €300 per month).
And beside, what really kills me, is how you Americans just care about the money. Man, quality of life is much more than the money. It's support when you need it. It's knowing that you are protected in case something goes wrong and it's not entirely your fault, it's good climate (well, this only applies to Souther Europe), it's culture for free, it's really good food (once again ... only in southern Europe :D), it's living in a city where you don't have to drive every morning to work cause the public mass transport system is really effective or because the centre of the city is also occupied by it's citizens ... well, it's a very big bunch of many other things.
I might not be rich ... but then again, I have everything I need to be happy, so what's the problem?
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like you are rich, it's just that 20-30% of your money doesn't appear on your budget since you're enjoying it through all these public services.
No, that's the part most of the Americans constantly fail to understand. I'm not rich in here, and I wouldn't still be rich if I hadn't to pay those extra 20%-30% more to get these benefits. In fact I doubt that 30% over the wage I get (around €1000 per month) would actually allowed my to buy all that stuff. More, I'm completely certain that it would not allow the people that earn the minimum wage (which in here is around €500 and that's very little even with these benefits), would allow them to have this.
But his is the great part about it. The 20%-30% that a very rich people also has to pay, it's enough to give the benefits to that rich one, and there is plenty of money left to get those same benefits to a bunch the ones that earn much less than them.
A small example. The tax over fuel in here it's huge. It's really one of the highest in EU, but on the other side, public transportation works well and it's quite cheap (€18 per month to travel as many time as you want in the metro, or €25 to travel all you want in metro and BUS). And I'm happy, it's this way. The city works much better than if everyone takes their cars around, it's less polluted, and it's better for the environment.
It's not Socialism, it's Social Democracy and when done really correctly it works beautifully, like you have to admit it works in Northern Europe ... not so good in the South, but it's still ok in here. And well, although, Northern Europe is better in this social aspect and has all those nice blondes, but bah, it's too cold for me and the food kind of stinks ... and all that contributes to your quality of life :)
Re:"Facing" and serving are very different things. (Score:4, Informative)
I have indeed done my research on this since I have had to consider hiring foreigners.
And as I wrote in reply to your sibling, you are by no means required to spend all your money, you can save it up, earn interest, invest them - at no point do you have to pay anything more.
And please, please, please don't tell someone they are incompetent when you can't even work out what 17.5% VAT is in terms of total taxes. By the way (for both you and sibling) in the UK you don't pay VAT on everything, unless you only buy goods.
Let me give you a nice example from Denmark where we in fact pay VAT "on every goddamn thing" at 25% - Lets say I earn 100.000 kr, I pay 40% taxes, that leaves me with 60.000 kr.
At 25% VAT, it means 20% of everything I buy is tax, so lets say I spend all 60.000, that means 15.000 of that is an additional tax, which is 15% of the original, that means I pay 55% taxes total.
I'm very much aware of how much I pay in taxes, and I do my share of gibbering about it every month when I get my paycheck, but then I remember, this pays for my medical bills, for the roads, my education, for safety on the streets (milage may vary here, I'll give you that) etc .
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.
Re:You have to forgive many of us if we are skepti (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? Anything that involves interstate commerce can immediately be classified as federal. And it's easy to classify anything has having an effect on commerce.
I did not say "I didn't do anything." I said "I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. " And that is absolutely true. In fact, I filed my own 2255 collateral attack and the judge issued a sua sponte ruling (in violation of Greenlaw) using Gonzalez v Raich, a 9th Circuit medical marijuana case, which states that the Government can regulate noncommercial INTRAstate activity in which it has an interest. (See Wickard v Fillmore.) No "special circumstance.." the Feds just need to have an interest in you.
As for only "robbery with a gun" being an example of a life sentence requirement, that's bollocks. Feds operate on a very strict numerical system, (even though Booker says it's all advisory.) See this table? [ussc.gov] All you need to do is get up to Offense Level 37 with a few priors and you're gone forever. Or get a few 924(c) counts, the third of which puts you away for life, mandatory. There are white collar guys who are doing life because their dollar amounts are high. Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun, did he? How about Jeff Skilling? A guy who sells small amounts of drugs three times does 20 years, mandatory because of 18 USC 851.
You can do life for conspiracy. If I call you and ask "hey want a pound of blow?" and you simply say yes, you can be indicted on a pound of blow..at least 15 years. No blow needs to exist. Happens every day.
Just cause you have a pal who happens to work for a PD doesn't mean you understand just how unjust the system is. Actually, at the spot I served, I never saw a single inmate who claimed to be innocent.
I'm just suggesting people be very careful.
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.
What if he loses (Score:3, Interesting)
While we can get all indignant about how asinine this is and how the laws are stupid. What can we do if he does lose this case and goes to prison. What is our recourse? There isn't one. While I'd love to be able to look back and say this was some landmark case that caused some sort of sane reform, I just dont see that happening, and I just don't see Maryland replacing the politicians that are allowing this farce to continue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is our recourse? There isn't one...
Martin L. King would probably disagree. Seriously. Begin part of a "democracy" means so much more than the right to vote. If enough can rally to the cause there are many *peaceful* things you can do. Don't forget that bad PR is a DA worst nightmare....
/. is probably harder than it looks.
But motivating lots of people to hit the streets rather than get hot under the collier on
But then again flash mobs do happen.
Who watches the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress getting interested - write and call (Score:5, Informative)
Support House Concurrent Resolution 298 [loc.gov], "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." US citizens, click here to write your congressional representative. [house.gov]
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.
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:Imagine If The LAPD did that to R. King (Score:5, Informative)
Just imagine if LAPD pulled that on the person who filmed the Rodney King incident.
The police would have got away with it and those same police would be beating citizens to this day.
Rodney King is the reason police hate anyone to film them. The only films they want are ones that can 'get lost' in their evidence room if they turn out to be inconvenient.
There is a reason they are called 'filth'.
Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
While I would defend 100% his right to post this video, there is one thing I wouldn't have done (well, two things really) if it were me:
1. Put the 120+MPH bit on YouTube. That's just asking to attract more unwanted police attention. I'd have just posted the last bit (where he admits to 69 and 80 mph, probably what he got the ticket for) and not put the bit where he overtakes the bus.
2. Do 120+ on a busy highway in the first place.
There's a time and place to go hooning, and it's called a very quiet road where no other traffic is, and where you're reasonably sure there are not cops lurking. And if you do get caught and get a ticket for 80 mph, for heaven's sake don't then admit to 120 in a YouTube video!
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.
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. ;)
Maryland Cops (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the gazillionth story I've heard of Maryland cops wantonly abusing their power.
The most blatant one I've heard happened to a coworker of mine from Bethesda in about '98. His car had been stolen and was reported to the police about a month prior to the incident. The police had actually recovered his vehicle and he had picked it up at the city impound lot earlier in the week.
On a Friday night, he was pulled over while riding with a friend. The cops ran to his car with guns drawn, pulled the doors open, dragged them out of the car, forced them to the ground, and kicked the crap out of them. All the while they were both of course shouting that this was their car and trying to show ID etc.
After they were both beaten into submission, the cops did eventually look at the car papers and ID, and then verified with their dispatcher that the car had been recovered that week, after which they simply drove away. I believe there were exchanges of something along the lines of "you have no proof of anything".
Now, my friend should have gotten a lawyer, but where he messed up was that he & his dad went to the police station to complain, which got them basically nowhere. Actually this was also about the time he left our mutual employer and we haven't really discussed it since, so I'm not sure how it turned out in the end.
Re:Maryland Cops (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
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.
This ACLU attourney does not inspire confidence (Score:4, Informative)
FTA
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.'" (emphasis mine)
If this David Rocah had even bothered to view the video in question, he'd know the officer was not wearing a uniform.
One-button upload to Wikileaks (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a useful phone app someone into phone apps should write. When you push one emergency button, the phone starts taking video and audio and uploading it in real time to a server, which then immediately sends the video someplace where it can't be deleted. (Sending it to YouTube, Wikileaks, the ACLU, and CopWatch might be overkill, but it would work.)
Then do something other than whining on /. (Score:4, Informative)
First step would be to learn about the laws involved. This is not a US wide law, this is state by state and the majority of states are not like this. If your state is affected, then set about trying to change it. You might discover that your state representatives don't even know. This shit was drafted up a long time ago in most cases. You make them aware they are a two party state and the consequences, maybe they work to fix it. If not, you continue the quest along other avenues.
However bitching about the USA being a "Police State" on a message board does no good.
And before you shoot back at me, I live in a one party state, so this particular issue is not one I concern myself with. My legislature has already made the correct choice, and we can record if we like.
Re:USA - Police State (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)