• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Cop pulls guy on biker. Pt. II - He could get 16 years in the slammer

Norbs said:
WOW! Dude needs a lawyer or a better lawyer and now! Illegal wiretap 16 years... go fuck yourself... this shit falls under the eight amendment "cruel and unusual punishments". Besides that I can't understand how catching the police on video doing something wrong can be illegal. Then catching me on tape doing something wrong should be illegal too.

This country is a scary place when police have this much damn power... and the government is just slowly pushing their boundaries over our rights day by day. I doubt that the 16yr is going to stick but it doesn't matter it's just them trying to show off their power.

Really hope the best for the guy...
Click to expand...

Agreed... and we're letting it happen... the Patriot Act?? Please! :barf :rolleyes

clutchslip said:
"Rocah said actual wiretapping prosecutions, though rare, are happening more frequently. But intimidation with the threat of arrest for taping the police is much more common."

This is serious stuff. And many worried about the Patriot Act and it's unintended consequences. The ACLU needs to get busy. If the ACLU would spend more time and energy fighting for OUR rights, instead of worrying about Christian crosses on historic sites, I would send them money, again.
Click to expand...

The American Public is both lazy and afraid... and they're signing their rights away day by day for a false sense of security.
Some 20+ years ago, I read a small article in the paper, ranking the US 12th in Freedoms of Developed Nations... we were even behind Canada. I don't imagine we've moved up on that list. :(
 
I just watched the original video again.

That damn pussy cop needs to lose his job. Fucking power tripping pussy with a badge, and, unfortunately, a weapon.
 
Sabre said:
there should be no penalty for videotaping police. How many times have you heard "you shouldn't be so worried about privacy if you have nothing to hide?" This should be 10x as applicable to police officers. They are public servants, their paychecks come from our taxes, there should be transparency and accountability. The only exception should be if it jeopardizes an ongoing investigation or operation.
Click to expand...

no no no no. this only makes sense, we will have none of this.
 
just watched video of the pussy cop's fellow Maryland State Troopers stand by their guy and rationalize why the pussy cop did the right thing.

I don't get it.....pull a gun for a speeder....?
 
Gixxergirl1000 said:
Agreed... and we're letting it happen... the Patriot Act?? Please! :barf :rolleyes
Click to expand...
Yep that's the biggest thing I was referring to; the patriot act was a HUGE step in giving the government way too much power. Being able to accuse ANYONE of being a terrorist and then taking away all their rights is pretty damn scary.
 
sidewazzz said:
ok since you "know" go to santana row is a camera bag with cameras strapped around your neck and see what happens. Go take pictures on the side of HWY 9 and see what happens. Go to the hollywood area with a 70-200mounted up and see what happens.

Public places are not so "public" when it comes to cameras and video.

I' only saying this becuase I have to follow alot of these rules when I'm out shooting.:rolleyes
Click to expand...

If you are taking photos of stuff happening in public, there isn't a whole lot people can do to stop you. Santana Row is not a public place, it's privately owned, the owners can limit photography on their own property. Nobody can stop you from taking photos on Highway 9, or any other public locale. And as far as Hollywood is concerned, have you seen the paparazzi and the equipment those guys lug around in public?

There are exceptions, of course. One biggie is related to the requirement that professional photographers obtain a permit to photograph with certain national parks, for example. Amateurs do not need a permit -- but this is related more towards keeping pros from hogging the good sites for photos rather than any limits on photography in public places.

How you use a picture taken in public, now that has a whole different set of restrictions, mainly related to publicity rights.

If you think the rules are different, maybe you should talk to a lawyer so you understand what you can and can't do. You can pretty much photograph anything you want when you are in public.

sliverstorm said:
Yup, apparently it's illegal to take photos of the GG Bridge; it is COPYRIGHTED!
Click to expand...

:confused Where did you get this idea? The Golden Gate Bridge may have a copyright associated with it -- I don't know if it does or not -- but even if it does, that doesn't mean it is illegal to photograph it. Architectural copyrights have different limitations than do other forms of copyright.

clutchslip said:
They are more public than you might believe. See my post above.

I had one injunction to stop my publicly exposing what was said in a private conversation. (Who cared? It was strictly a visual shot.) I had one guy try to stop his likeness being displayed while he was in a public place. (He was with a girlfriend that his wife didn't know about.) Zip. Nada. Nowhere. I was not shooting THEM, but the environment.

You are entitled to a "reasonable" amount of privacy, not an invisible shield. It just takes a little bit of money, and/or tenacity to go ahead when confronted. Otherwise, everyone at Laguna Seca, this coming weekend, will sue MotoGP out of existence.
Click to expand...

You are not entitled to any privacy -- with respect to your image -- when you are out in public. You may be entitled to privacy, even out in public, when you are in a private conversation and take precautions to keep your conversation private. That's what this case is all about -- the video is a red herring, it's only the audio portion that is really the issue here.
 
macadamizer said:
You are not entitled to any privacy -- with respect to your image -- when you are out in public. You may be entitled to privacy, even out in public, when you are in a private conversation and take precautions to keep your conversation private. That's what this case is all about -- the video is a red herring, it's only the audio portion that is really the issue here.
Click to expand...
:thumbup Correcto-muy-mimosa. Which is why I think that Maryland is full of bad beer and beans.

(On a side note: Man, this thing stayed in General for a long time. I thought it might hit the Sink at some point.) :cool
 
While I'm not in support of prosecuting this guy, the audio is indeed the issue and for all of you who think you should have absolute zero rights to privacy when you walk out in public, how would you feel if everything you said in public, even just whispered to a friend, was recorded by someone else? Not a cop or The State, but TMZ or some other media types, or just some random people. So anyone with a robust listening device could record your conversations of any type anywhere outside of a private residence and throw it up on You Tube for the world to see. Would you all be cool with that? Is that the society you want?

And Lion, we get it. Pussy cop pussy pussy pusssy, he's a pussy, you want to tell the pussy cop that he's a pussy pussy pussy. News flash, his name is in the paper as is his department. You could pick up the phone and call him and tell him your views if you so desire or write him a nice letter.
 
Norbs said:
Yep that's the biggest thing I was referring to; the patriot act was a HUGE step in giving the government way too much power. Being able to accuse ANYONE of being a terrorist and then taking away all their rights is pretty damn scary.
Click to expand...

History always repeats itself.

"She's a witch!" :facepalm
 
Norbs said:
Yep that's the biggest thing I was referring to; the patriot act was a HUGE step in giving the government way too much power. Being able to accuse ANYONE of being a terrorist and then taking away all their rights is pretty damn scary.
Click to expand...

Just curious, can you give us a list of the people that lost all their rights pursuant to Patriot Act enforcement based on accusations of terrorism?
 
sidewazzz said:
Actually video recording anyone and showing their face is the big no-no. That is why you see peoples faces blurred out all the time. Had the guy blurred out the PO face there would be nothing to get him on. He could possibly get out of this if he proves the video was for personal use (as in not make any money off it).
Click to expand...

I know this is several days late and someone else might have responded, but I seem to recall that when you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. It's more what you DO with that recording that matters.
 
So in this case, the police officer should have gotten charged with brandishing a weapon and lost his job, a couple million to the victim from the PD, officer loses right to carry firearm, plus a 16 year or so sentence. The rider should receive a speeding ticket and exhibition of speed, and an apology from the LEO and the PD. The fact that anything besides the above is happening is deeply disturbing. Now I'm glad SJPD is being mandated to wear cameras
 
Ozymandias said:
I know this is several days late and someone else might have responded, but I seem to recall that when you're in public you have no expectation of privacy. It's more what you DO with that recording that matters.
Click to expand...

Yeah we covered that 100 posts ago. You either do or don't have privacy right and it's either illegal or not to tape someone. What you do with it is either critical to the legal issue or irrelevant. Also, all cops may be dicks and the government may be listening in on your conversations right now. Or not. Hard to say.
 
Archimedes said:
Whats the criminal code section on that? Cops brandishing weapons and stuff.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the officer's training, he was told when he can and can't wave his gun around. It's reserved for violent crimes or in case the officer feels threatened for a legit reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top