You can film LEOs

[Blayglock]

A court case was recently settled that has far ranging implications for first amendment liberties.

Landmark Settlement Reached In Preakness Arrest Case « CBS Baltimore

I dont know that this has been much of an issue in Texas but please dont turn this into an LEO bashing thread.

 

[just jk]

well this will all turn out well

now you'll have a rash of people who otherwise feel irrelevant in their life, taking a video camera out to encounters with the police, trying to draw them into something youtube worthy

 

[London]

well this will all turn out well

now you'll have a rash of people who otherwise feel irrelevant in their life, taking a video camera out to encounters with the police, trying to draw them into something youtube worthy

They do that already. Nothing wrong with keeping cops honest. If the videographers are getting intrusive or disruptive enough they'll be rightfully arrested for it. Not seeing a problem here.

 

[majormadmax]

You've always been able to videotape LEOs in Texas (other states have laws against it), as long as you don't interfere with their duties. If you do, then you can be arrested...

As for videotaping "keeping cops honest," I would believe that if people actually posted the entire video but most times they are edited to only show 'select' bits...

 

[London]

You've always been able to videotape LEOs in Texas (other states have laws against it), as long as you don't interfere with their duties. If you do, then you can be arrested...

As for videotaping "keeping cops honest," I would believe that if people actually posted the entire video but most times they are edited to only show 'select' bits...

Before the widespread use of video cameras, back in a magical time called the late 80's/early 90's, there was a fascinating show called COPS. Even though the purpose of the show was to make cops look good/show off the more exciting aspects of police work, there were still plenty of times they showed police doing illegal/objectionable things without editing to make them look that way.

One of the big problems with videos of police abuse is that people only start recording after the juicy stuff has already started. It is still a matter of disputing what started the altercation.

Not disagreeing with you, but just like cops try to come up with a reason to justify every bad video taken of them, there can be explanations for why the videos are incomplete. And then some of them really do just flat out show corruption.

Put mandatory body cams on police and a lot of this will become a non-issue. As an added bonus they are much better at recording audio than a cell-phone video taken from 75' away.

 

[TX69]

Sometimes it hard to hate the ACLU when they support a guy and win cases like this.

Also, he got paid but the taxpayer is taking it in the keister.

"The city has agreed to pay Sharp $25,000 for his trouble, but they will also pay his legal bills—to the tune of $220,000. Those payments were approved by the city Board of Estimates Wednesday morning."

 

[benenglish]

Before the widespread use of video cameras, back in a magical time called the late 80's/early 90's, there was a fascinating show called COPS. Even though the purpose of the show was to make cops look good/show off the more exciting aspects of police work, there were still plenty of times they showed police doing illegal/objectionable things without editing to make them look that way.

I never understood that. There were some truly awful, incredibly obvious, terribly illegal things done by police officers on COPS. Yet it seemed that police departments all *still* wanted the publicity. The lack of self-awareness documented on that show was shocking to me back in the day.

 

[benenglish]

Nothing wrong with keeping cops honest. If the videographers are getting intrusive or disruptive enough they'll be rightfully arrested for it. Not seeing a problem here.

Definition of terms problems will crop up. The definition of "intrusive or disruptive" depends on the judgment of the police officer, some of whom seem to believe that the mere act of filming them is intrusive or disruptive, no matter how far away the photographer stands.

If anything good comes from the repeated court rulings (and there have been many) in favor of photographers, it will be a change in the attitude of some police that the public must ask permission to look at them.

 

[benenglish]

Folks really interested in this topic should read Carlos Miller's site. He was a photographer who was treated ridiculously for doing perfectly legal photography, got a permanent burr under his saddle because of it, and has been documenting all sorts of data on the subject for quite a while. See: Photography is Not a Crime: PINAC | Photography is Not a Crime

 

[Odiferous]

Aaaaaaand...that's Maryland. I had a cop neighbor, otherwise a great guy, tell me that if I didn't go to the police and register my handgun, then I could be arrested and charged with a felony. Not true, of course, Merry-land has voluntary registration.

I simply stopped talking about guns with him.

 

[majormadmax]

Sometimes it hard to hate the ACLU when they support a guy and win cases like this.

Sorry, but it's still pretty easy to hate the ACLU. Any organization whose charter claims "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States" but who fails to do so for any Second Amendment-related issue well deserves any and all criticisms directed towards it!

The ACLU has constantly held onto the belief that the Second Amendment establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, despite the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals. They also publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision on DC v. Heller.

It all goes back to the old joke..."How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? Answer: 1, 3, 4, 5..."

Screw the ACLU.

 

[Odiferous]

Sorry, but it's still pretty easy to hate the ACLU. Any organization whose charter claims "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States" but who fails to do so for any Second Amendment-related issue well deserves any and all criticisms directed towards it!

The ACLU has constantly held onto the belief that the Second Amendment establishes a collective right for militias to have weapons, despite the fact that the US Supreme Court has ruled the right applies to individuals. They also publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision on DC v. Heller.

It all goes back to the old joke..."How does an ACLU lawyer count to 10? Answer: 1, 3, 4, 5..."

Screw the ACLU.

If the Second Amendment were truly a collective right, then as a member of the Militia I'd like to be issued my select-fire M-4 rifle and M-9 pistol (with a basic load of ammo, of course).

 

[breakingcontact]

Ive got an app on my phone that automatically uploads to an account. So even if they take my phone I've still got the video.

 

[benenglish]

Ive got an app on my phone that automatically uploads to an account. So even if they take my phone I've still got the video.

Amateur.

 

[1slow01Z71]

Goes right along with many departments putting "lapel cameras" on their officers and magically cop abuse complaints dramatically drop. As a cop I would hate to have that camera on me to second guess my every action but as a citizen and the way many cops are acting these days it almost seems like ought to be mandatory. A few bad apples ruins it for everyone.

 

[IXLR8]

Why are the videos always aimed at makiing LEO's look bad. They do plenty of good things that never seem to see the light of day. You never see a video of a LEO at a Krispy Kreme, it is always some sort of human rights violation....

 

[breakingcontact]

Why are the videos always aimed at makiing LEO's look bad. They do plenty of good things that never seem to see the light of day. You never see a video of a LEO at a Krispy Kreme, it is always some sort of human rights violation....

Go and make one? I recently sent out a tweet recommending a car dealership. I had a good experience at a place many people hate dealing with so I put that positive review out there.

Go interview a cop helping someone change a tire and upload it to YouTube.

 

[cpileri]

what app is that?

Ive got an app on my phone that automatically uploads to an account. So even if they take my phone I've still got the video.

thx,
C-

 

[breakingcontact]

what app is that?



thx,
C-

FivoFilm. It uploads to Dropbox.