Are Cameras the New Guns?

[Linflas]

No, there's a difference. When you as a citizen are filmed at every intersection or by police drones flying overhead it's OK. When pigs are caught on video beating a suspect, that's an abuse of their right to privacy. Poor pigs.

I laugh at the all the people who think we can continue increasing the size and scope of government while still keeping it under control.

Pretty scary isn't it? Even worse is it is a bipartisan blindness, liberals think that government can be involved in every personal decision a person makes without infringing on their rights while conservatives believe that government can be trusted with extraordinary policing powers without infringing on rights. From what I see both paths lead to tyranny of one form or another.

 

[TheVrolok]

i hope that this does not pass. in fact they should make it that cops have more cameras on them during duty hours.

a citizin should NEVER be arrested for taping or recording a police officer in PUBLIC or in there own home.

of course the cops want it against the law.

This. I wonder how this applies (if at all) to things like in-store/home security cameras. If an on-duty cop walks into a store that is under surveillance, is that illegal? Or no, because there is a sign somewhere?

 

[ShawnD1]

A good cop would WANT himself to be filmed. It makes defending himself again fallacious charges of misconduct much easier.

This. People complain about cops all the time. Having video evidence can set you free if you're innocent. It can also get you fired if you're corrupt as hell.

Just look how many times we've had ATOT threads where a cop beats someone and the video from the dash cam in the car shows the cop was 100% right. Good cops following procedures are glad the camera is there to back them up when they say they gave fair warning or that someone swung at them first.

 

[CycloWizard]

This makes me sick. How can facts (i.e. a recording of actual events) ever be used in the obstruction of justice? This can only hold when "justice" isn't based on facts at all. I have often contemplated attaching a video camera to my car to record everything that happens (after getting hit and run seven times in four years...), but apparently I'd get locked up for doing that if I ever drove by a cop. Wow.

 

[cubeless]

This makes me sick. How can facts (i.e. a recording of actual events) ever be used in the obstruction of justice? This can only hold when "justice" isn't based on facts at all. I have often contemplated attaching a video camera to my car to record everything that happens (after getting hit and run seven times in four years...), but apparently I'd get locked up for doing that if I ever drove by a cop. Wow.

this is an odd kind of thing... but what about the video that shows the cops subduing someone but missed the part about the perp hitting the cop with something, or the five minutes of swinging that went on before the cop got the upper hand, etc?

the problem for me is that there's almost always more to the story... and when you have a crowd of little oliver stones gather whenever a cop is trying to do anything these days, it is going to make the cops a bit more nervous... believe it or not some cops are actually worried about the safety of the people around when an incident occurs...

but i'm all for the cop car based recorders...

 

[waggy]

this is an odd kind of thing... but what about the video that shows the cops subduing someone but missed the part about the perp hitting the cop with something, or the five minutes of swinging that went on before the cop got the upper hand, etc?

the problem for me is that there's almost always more to the story... and when you have a crowd of little oliver stones gather whenever a cop is trying to do anything these days, it is going to make the cops a bit more nervous... believe it or not some cops are actually worried about the safety of the people around when an incident occurs...

but i'm all for the cop car based recorders...

that's just idiotic.

people are always going to go see a person getting arrested, a accident etc. no matter if htey have a camera or not.

not to mention IF it keeps one innocent person out of jail its worht it and having a cop defend his actions is also a positive.

 

[Perknose]

This. I wonder how this applies (if at all) to things like in-store/home security cameras.

Without audio, they don't.

 

[Perknose]

I have often contemplated attaching a video camera to my car to record everything that happens (after getting hit and run seven times in four years...), but apparently I'd get locked up for doing that if I ever drove by a cop. Wow.

Without audio, you are fine.

 

[Perknose]

So does this mean security cameras which do not seek the consent of an individual are illegal? In many cases stores have security cameras focused on the outside which would be public domain. We need a lawyer to visit this thread.

You don't need a lawyer, these long outdated laws exist in "only" 12 states and apply only to audio.

 

[CLite]

You don't need a lawyer, these long outdated laws exist in "only" 12 states and apply only to audio.

Googling shows California is one of those states unless the video shows criminal activity then it requires 1-party consent. Too bad Ashton Kutcher never pissed off anyone enough with his old show "Punked". It would of been hilarious to see him get arrested for such an old statute.

 

[Patranus]

I can understand why police want this law.
You have someone film an arrest on some sub 1MP camera from a distance and then gives that video directly to the media. That taints the prosecution and the jury pool.

Many people also do not understand the type of people the police deal with and the require force to control someone for the officers protection. When these videos are released to the public it can negatively portray the police when the public does not understand the situation in its entirety.

While I probably wouldn't make it illegal to tape the police I would put a law in place that all video had to be run through the police prior to release by the media (maybe by the 3rd party).

Just look at this BART shooting in San Francisco. You have a thug who was engaged in an all out fight on the train while drunk and high. Then you have him struggling with police and the police officer accidentally pulls his gun instead of his tazer. While 90% of the population understands the situation and realizes the BART officers made a mistake you have 10% of the population riot in downtown Oakland which results in the BART officers being charged with murder not manslaughter.

 

[fleshconsumed]

You're such a hack Patranus. Video cannot possibly negatively portray police, only police themselves can portray themselves negatively.

 

[CycloWizard]

I can understand why police want this law.
You have someone film an arrest on some sub 1MP camera from a distance and then gives that video directly to the media. That taints the prosecution and the jury pool.

Many people also do not understand the type of people the police deal with and the require force to control someone for the officers protection. When these videos are released to the public it can negatively portray the police when the public does not understand the situation in its entirety.

While I probably wouldn't make it illegal to tape the police I would put a law in place that all video had to be run through the police prior to release by the media (maybe by the 3rd party).

Just look at this BART shooting in San Francisco. You have a thug who was engaged in an all out fight on the train while drunk and high. Then you have him struggling with police and the police officer accidentally pulls his gun instead of his tazer. While 90% of the population understands the situation and realizes the BART officers made a mistake you have 10% of the population riot in downtown Oakland which results in the BART officers being charged with murder not manslaughter.

So you don't trust government for anything, except when it comes to the use of lethal force and censoring absolutely factual information in video format? You truly represent the idiocy of the stereotypical conservative.

 

[nonlnear]

So you don't trust government for anything, except when it comes to the use of lethal force and censoring absolutely factual information in video format? You truly represent the idiocy of the stereotypical conservative.

I suspect Patranus is a mole. Perhaps a plant by the American Workers Party, Communist Party USA or some such group to make bizarre utterances while claiming to stump for "real conservative values". Then reality kicks in and I remember that there are plenty of people capable of posting the idiotic drivel that he does, believing it all, and being perfectly comfortable with the cognitive dissonance it entails. Oh well...

 

[Patranus]

So you don't trust government for anything, except when it comes to the use of lethal force and censoring absolutely factual information in video format? You truly represent the idiocy of the stereotypical conservative.

I said that I can understand why the police would want these laws and listed examples/reason why. However, I do not support such laws.

Same thing with making "sin" illegal or taxing it. I can understand why government wants to do it but the fact of the matter is that consenting adults should be allowed to make their own choices.

 

[CycloWizard]

I said that I can understand why the police would want these laws and listed examples/reason why. However, I do not support such laws.

Same thing with making "sin" illegal or taxing it. I can understand why government wants to do it but the fact of the matter is that consenting adults should be allowed to make their own choices.

You said you would put a law in place which allows police censorship of these videos, which is just as good as not allowing the video to be taken in the first place: nothing negative would ever make it through the censor. Thus, you are simply supporting a more covert means to the same end.

 

[CycloWizard]

I suspect Patranus is a mole. Perhaps a plant by the American Workers Party, Communist Party USA or some such group to make bizarre utterances while claiming to stump for "real conservative values". Then reality kicks in and I remember that there are plenty of people capable of posting the idiotic drivel that he does, believing it all, and being perfectly comfortable with the cognitive dissonance it entails. Oh well...

Unfortunately, I think there are plenty on both sides now who really believe that facts are subjective, except when presented by government.

 

[waggy]

I can understand why police want this law.
You have someone film an arrest on some sub 1MP camera from a distance and then gives that video directly to the media. That taints the prosecution and the jury pool.

Many people also do not understand the type of people the police deal with and the require force to control someone for the officers protection. When these videos are released to the public it can negatively portray the police when the public does not understand the situation in its entirety.

While I probably wouldn't make it illegal to tape the police I would put a law in place that all video had to be run through the police prior to release by the media (maybe by the 3rd party).

Just look at this BART shooting in San Francisco. You have a thug who was engaged in an all out fight on the train while drunk and high. Then you have him struggling with police and the police officer accidentally pulls his gun instead of his tazer. While 90% of the population understands the situation and realizes the BART officers made a mistake you have 10% of the population riot in downtown Oakland which results in the BART officers being charged with murder not manslaughter.

...man you keep proving yourself a bigger and bigger idiot.

sure 90% understand he made a mistake. a mistake that KILLED a kid.

if NOT for the video the officer would have gotten away with it. in this case (and nearly EVERY ONE where there is video) the officer was nailed for what he did and rightfully so.


there is no reason (well besides keeping officers from getting in trouble when they fuck up) to make it against the law.

 

[WHAMPOM]

We must guard the guardians, evil avoids the light so why do the LEO want to avoid video? To dispute reality? Let's look at history, cameras were installed in fighter planes to record kills, operating the same time as the machine gun, they showed a large percentage of friendly planes targeted to the astonishment of the pilots.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I can understand why police want this law.
You have someone film an arrest on some sub 1MP camera from a distance and then gives that video directly to the media. That taints the prosecution and the jury pool.

Many people also do not understand the type of people the police deal with and the require force to control someone for the officers protection. When these videos are released to the public it can negatively portray the police when the public does not understand the situation in its entirety.

While I probably wouldn't make it illegal to tape the police I would put a law in place that all video had to be run through the police prior to release by the media (maybe by the 3rd party).

Just look at this BART shooting in San Francisco. You have a thug who was engaged in an all out fight on the train while drunk and high. Then you have him struggling with police and the police officer accidentally pulls his gun instead of his tazer. While 90% of the population understands the situation and realizes the BART officers made a mistake you have 10% of the population riot in downtown Oakland which results in the BART officers being charged with murder not manslaughter.

Instant playback works great on the sport's field and should do as great in the Court Room. You got any idea where I am going with this?

edit; I am for unedited video on all sides. And your last paragraph shows a disconnect as the sitting "thug" is pulled nonresisting from a sitting position onto his belly and shot.