Slashdot Mirror
NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police
macinrack writes to mention a story about a New Hampshire man who was arrested for videotaping police on his doorstep, using a fairly standard security camera system. He was officially charged with 'two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device.' From the article: "The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said. On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in 'public relations,' his wife said and police reported. Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family's house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him."
And they wonder why people don't respect the police...
I wonder what this will mean for people with this setup who get pulled over.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective's consent.
Doesn't he know that the President is the only personl legally allowed to wire tap?
So we have a story of a rogue police department intimidating anyone who gets in their way, and of course someone submits it to Slashdot hoping to get everyone worked up about our rights online being trampled? What's next, blaming it all on Bush? Have some perspective, please.
Is it seriously to hard to atleast read the article summary to see signs were posted?
I live here in NH and am very upset by this. Many police cars here carry cameras on thier dashboards and tape you when they cops pull you over for a ticket! In addition, all the tollbooths on rt 93 around Manchester all have cameras .. I wonder if any felony acts are being commited there, where I've seen no signs warning me I was on camera?
This is a clear cut violation of First Amendment rights. Not the free speach ones but the free press ones. I wonder if the ACLU will stand up for this man. The police are obviously wrong here.
By the way, isn't New Hampshire supposed to be the state all the Libertarians are moving to, and wasn't it chosen because it was the most Free to begin with? Jeez, if this kind of thing can happen there the rest of us are really screwed!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you would read the summary, it says that they did have it posted. This means that it SHOULD be legal. They can charge you for anything, convicting requires an overzealous prosecutor and a judge that wants to get home early that day.
Did these guys think that because they were the cops, they didn't have to answer to anybody? If the contents of the tape is what this family says it is, some hard lessons are going to be learned. Unfortunatly, the people who are going to pay are the taxpayers, and not the cops themselves.
The law cannot protect you from the police.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
"Live Free or Die," indeed.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Don't you realize that whatever the authorities want to do is legal, and that your disagreeing with that is criminal? You must be a terrorist!
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Most people will look at this and see a corrupt police force and yet another sign of our times. Yes, I see the irony that a citizen is getting charged under a wiretapping law in this day and age.
Problem is, most people don't see these stories for what they truly generally are. Stupidity. You know, there are stupid cops and even stupid judges. Most of the time, when cases like this make it out into the world people think that the system is to blame. Normally thats not the case, the stupidity of the officers involved are to blame. Well, either that or some queer powertrip, which is far too common with law enforcement aswell.
In the end, this will all get thrown out in court. Thing is, nobody knows at what cost it will be to the guy involved. Thats truly the greatest flaw of all in the system. IMHO, there should almost be a pre-court judge that can take a look at cases in advance as a checksum against stupidity, and throw them out right away if they are as dumb as this one. I suppose that would be rife for abusing too though.
Damn, how long until I get modded -1 redundant. DOH! :)
(I swear, there was only one post on the front page when I pounced on him/her for not reading the summary!)
"The laws of 13 states expressly prohibit the unauthorized installation or use of cameras in private places. In Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire , South Dakota, and Utah, installation or use of any device for photographing, observing or overhearing events or sounds in a private place without permission of the people photographed or observed is against the law. A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance. Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Michagin, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Utah also prohibit trespassing on private property to conduct surveillance of people there. In most of these states, unauthorized installation or use of hidden cameras is a felony, punishable by a 2000.00 fine and up to 2 years in prison."
Odd. bolding and italics are mine.This space intentionally left blank
Well, I feel like a dolt.
:/ Live and learn to read.
I guess I assumed there wouldn't have been any issue with a sign.
What?
There's a link at the bottom of the article to New Hampshire's wiretapping laws. I'm not a lawyer but the way it reads to me is that you must give permission in order to be audio taped. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It could be that by posting signs then you give tacit approval if you choose to come on the property. Or, maybe posting signs isn't sufficient and you have to have someone agree to taping before starting. I did also note that the cops have exemptions that allow their patrol cars to tape as well as other law enforcement exemptions.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
What about all those police cameras spying on us because, they say, it's in public where you don't have the expectation of privacy? And furthermore, this is on someone's private property, AND in plain sight from public property.
I read about a case a while back in which a man tape-recorded the police who pulled him over and then harassed him and/or beat him. They lied about it but he had proof, at which point they charged him with something similar, and IIRC the judge ruled against him (the victim!). What about the video recorders in police cars? Their whole justification is that it's all right out IN PUBLIC.
However, it seems that the law is applied selectively so as to favor the police in law-breaking and disfavor you even when behaving legally. There are so many cases where justice has not been served that it seems the system is set up that way on purpose.
Being arrested, being charged, and being held guilty of a crime are three entirely different things. So far, I hear somebody got arrested.
As for the why, this article seems a little short on details. But one thing I've heard several times (though it's totally hearsay and it probably varies from state to state anyway) is that it is illegal to record both video and audio without prior consent. Most of the surveillance cameras you see in stores and the like only record video.
Similarly, it's illegal to record a telephone conversation without telling all parties on the line that it's being recorded. I think that's federal law.
In other words, yeah the cops probably had a right to arrest the guy. Did the cops it done as a form of harrassment? Yeah, probably. Well knock me over with a feather. Cops, harrassing people? Never!
Breakfast served all day!
I'm just waiting for the founders of New Hampshire to rise from their graves and go on a cop killing rampage.
Yes, but the summary did not say a $5 sign ... I'm sure Gannon's signs were the cheap ones from WalMart ... for about $1 ... and you know those just don't hold up in court.
Someone explain to me what the point of trying to get a first post is if you're posting AC?
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Let's see. Someone comes on his property, stands in full view of the owner and anyone walking down the street, the owner videotapes him and then uses the tape to try to lodge a complaint and they charge the property owner with a crime? Worse yet they try to use eavesdropping and wiretapping laws when he filmed the cop in public view on his private property. If he's convicted then we are really living in a fascist state.
It seems to me like Fascist Country and Police state! That's what happens when you vote for security! You get beaten by the police! I hope more people act like this family and sue police, because they are abusive!
sex is better than war!
Looks like he had already done that. This kind of stuff is ridiculous, I can't believe Americans are putting up with this kind of shit from the people we pay to protect our cities. More and more rights being taken away. My only question is how having security cameras on your own private property is against wiretapping laws? I bet this family is going to make a killing after they get done with that PD.
Sig: I stole this sig.
..."Live Free or Die".
Per the article, there was already a posted notice that the premises were under surveillance. Further, at one point, the owner somewhat snidely reminded the officer he was on camera with a, "smile for the camera".
One interesting note, the police in Nashua (where this happened) boast/advertise that they are "nationally accredited" and recieve all kinds of awards for professionalism and such.
It appears as though he did have a sign stating exactly that. Bottom line in these sorts of scenarios is that the police are the ones with the guns. I applaud this guy, because the video tape will show exactly who was doing what and I have a strong suspicion that the cops are at fault.
All we need now are a few more of these incidents, a few FOX reports siding with the police and the conversion will be complete.
Sad but true.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Obviously this means that his civil liberties can be trampled on.
I personally don't like all the emails, phone calls, love letters, death threats, package boms, letters of anthrax, etc. that I get when I successfully completed a First Post
What was this guy thinking? I know the ideas of freedom and public accountability are all knoble and good, but what world does this guy live in. After having a Los Angeles police officer put his heel on the back of my neck and put his revolver to my head, the first thing that I always say to a cop is "how can I help you officer." I know that it is a cliched line but power comes out of the barrel of a gun. I am not condoning the abuse of power, but don't play with fire or you might get burned.
an officer suggested they were "too rich" for the neighborhood, and should move
Funny thing is they might end up even richer.
You would think that someone's FRONT FRICKING YARD would be public enough. So does that mean the guy on the street videotaping IN the house is OK but they can't do it on their own property, OUTSIDE, in PUBLIC?
How can you eavesdrop on yourself? If it's your own property, how can it be eavesdropping? Do you need permission to record whenever others in the vicinity might incidentally be recorded as well?
How can it be wiretapping if there's no wire being tapped? Anti-wiretapping laws seem to be based on the idea that info transmitted by wire is "private" despite not being encrypted. If you're doing something right out in the open, albeit on private property, how does this apply? Is Wal*Mart also "wiretapping" by having security cameras?
Why is it a crime to monitor what our public servants are doing? How else can we guard against abuses of power? We're literally supposed to turn a blind eye and simply trust them without reservation?
Constitutionally Correct
What you do is make a motion for dismissal based on prejudice. Show the judge what you got before your court-date and write up the motion. You'll find most judges/upper people in the COURTS to be cool. Just don't go to the PD to try and get anything done. It's how I got rid of my speeding ticket :D (IANAL)
Sig: I stole this sig.
those are some serious changes.. particularly that murder charge!
>> arrested for videotaping police
I can imagine the Muppets' skit now, "Piiiiggggggs onnnnn Taaaaaappppe".
OK, I've figured it all out now. The guy has a teenage punk for a son with no regard for the law, and he's not much help. The cops decide they're going to teach him a lesson when he kicks them out of his house. Seeing as he lives in the ghetto, he has no civil rights. Yes, that's correct, ask anyone who lives in a ghetto of any city and they'll tell you that civil rights don't exist there. They take this as an opportunity to walk all over him, using the cameras as an excuse to make a felony arrest just to get back at him. There's no legal basis for this at all, and even less basis for the charges against his wife. It will all get thrown out and he'll sue the cops since they've made it so easy for him to do. The losers will be the taxpayers as usual. Moral of the story, if you live in the ghetto and have a delinquent son, don't expect nice treatment from the cops. But if they're stupid enough to do what these cops did you'll likely get a nice payoff.
Here in Albuquerque police did something similar recently. The police have been cracking down on drinking of any kind. Police were stopping all patrons leaving a particular bar and breath testing them. Even patrons taking a cab or a limo were harrassed. The bar owner had a friend come and videotape them. They said he was interfering with a police investigation, and since some of the officers also worked undercover, he was endangering the officers. So they arrested him. His friend started to videotape them arresting him, so they arrested the friend. Then the bar owner came out and started videotaping them arresting friend one and friend two, so they arrested the owner. Never mind these supposedly undercover cops were in full uniform on a busy street, they were endangered by these evil videotapers.
On the other hand, not all cops are bad. Once in college I got a flat tire while driving an unregistered uninsured hippy painted VW bus carrying a bag of weed. A nice officer stopped (in the rain no less) and helped me change the tire without even checking my license or registration, let alone whether a hippy painted VW bus might have contraband onboard.
On the third hand (yes, it's a Larry Niven reference) I've seen cops beat my friends for trying to feed homeless people on the street in San Francisco. Then they poured our soup down the drain and poured bleach over our bagels right in front of about 100 homeless folks.
So YMMV where police are concerned, some are cool, some are total dicks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I don't think that the video portion of the surveillance is what got this guy into trouble...it is the audio attached. It is perfectly alright under most circustances to record what someone _DOES_, but not necessarily what someone _SAYS_. From my understanding (limited though it is), this is because recording private (or assumed private) conversations is illegal in most states (this varies from state-to-state) unless you are law enforcement with a proper warrant. Video can also be considered illegal if it is considered a violation of privacy, but surveilling one's own property (or actions in the case of police videos) probably would not fall into this category. Also, in most of the police videos I've seen (on those cool "World's Greatest Chases" shows, etc.) _DO_NOT_ include audio...presumably for this very reason.
IANAL, but I doubt there will be much grounds for a defense (by the ACLU or otherwise) if the audio recording is a violation of state law. Sad, but probably true.
or at all for that matter.
I read 'NH' and my first thought was, "I don't recognize that element!"
A convenience store is privately owned -- how can they get away with having a camera in there?
The double standard is unfair, if the government can do it, so should we.
-Signed, Concerned NH-ite (who'd -still- choose living here over any other state)
In that vein, here's something a friend pointed me to just today.
Constitutionally Correct
What's the law on putting up security cameras outside your house? Inside your house you can record whatever you want. But if you put up a security camera outside your house, are there limits to what you can record? If there are limits, did this guy cross the line?
Think about it, it makes sense to put up a security camera to video tape your backyard, but what's to stop you from putting up a security camera to videotape your neighbor? You can't wiretap your neighbor so I'm sure the statute has legalese for videotaping things outside. This might actually have a leg to stand on.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Video tapping the police is not the problem here, it's wanting to file a complaint. Here in Phoenix, AZ a local news crew went to all the city police departments explaining that they wanted to file a complaint against an officer on that policed force. The television newsman was run out, ignored and threatened. Only the Phoenix police had a system of citizen complaints and treated the newsman with respect. I believe it was an eye opening news story for both people making complaints and the police departments stung.
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
No, no it wouldn't.
That's because, while it's legal to videotape people on your property where a sign is posted, or in any public place where they have no expectation of privacy (like out in front of your house) it's illegal to audiotape them without their express consent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is horrifying.
Hey dumbass, his post is timestamped only 2 minutes after the first reply that he's redundant to.
If you would like to give them a piece of your mind, here's a few phone numbers that are worth jotting down:
Conley, Donald, Deputy Chief Executive Officer
603-594-3500
Hefferan, Timothy, Chief of Police
603-594-3600
IANAL, but I would guess if they want to prosecute this man they will have to admit the video tape as evidence making it public record. If the police officer did misbehave it makes you wonder what the grounds of a civil lawsuit would be for the act itself. "My innocence by reason of insanity or self defense still means I will have to kill you..."
Anger has its uses. Here, let me show you.
I sort of wonder if this law wasn't originally aimed at preventing perverts from installing hidden toilet cams in their homes and so forth. I can think of several scenarios where one resident might infringe the privacy of another inside a residence.
Still a goofy, badly written law though.
Well if this is true the whole family surely deserves to go to jail!
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
The owner probably should have had a sign posted, to avoid all of this legal hassle. Simply stating to the officer that he or she is being videotaped makes for a shaky "who are you going to believe" argument. A key issue that I don't see listed is whether the owner turned on the system in response to the officer knocking at the door. If the individual was not running a continuous surveillance loop, it could be argued that the person merely installed the camera system to target certain individuals or the police.
Irregardless of the legal feasiblity of the charge, the charge sounds like a load of B.S. The owner may be a jerk, have two sons who are frequently at odds with the law, and may not feel inclined to rat on his own children whenever the police come around, but that doesn't give the police the right to make bogus charges and penalize the individual however they see fit. Even dicks have certain rights guaranteed and should be able to live without being harassed by police.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll get a fortune appealing to the government after being oppressed by.... the government?
lol, wut?
"Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family's house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him." So, the police (open 24/7) can operate at all hours, and expect you to only operate (file complaint, from 9 to 5)? KCTV 5 Kansas City did some investigation similar, to see how hard it was to get a complaint form (following posted proceedures) and got arrested. Any good lawyer will say, as they are public servants (no right to privacy while on his property) he had signs posted, and they failed to allow him to complain, and he will end up with money from the city (and them if he did his cards right) for false arrest, and imprisionment.
in prison for videotaping it.
Please listen to the recording linked from this page.
Video makes better news than just audio. If this incident was videotaped, major news outlets might have bothered airing it too.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
This sounds like a shitty PD doing shitty things. If the courts actually -hear- this, I'll be appalled. Then again, my appalled state has been getting a real workout lately, so who knows.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
The couple's 15-year-old son also was arrested, charged as a juvenile in unrelated cases of robbery and Internet trolling, according to police reports and Janet Gannon.
Quick! Call the cops, there's a lot of "Internet trolling" going on all the time here at Slashdot!
What do you expect in a country where we discriminate against applicants to the police force because they are too intelligent?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Everybody seems to be blaming ([1] [2] [3]) the President ... when in fact it was Steve Ballmer who threw the chair!
Now at last we can turn the arguement around: If you're not doing anything wrong, why worry about the cameras? Police routinely tape large demonstrations and outdoor events, how is this any different? There's no expectation of privacy in public place, that's why they had to use wiretap laws. It wasn't the video, it was the audio. I'm guessing N.H. is a two-party state, where both parties have to consent to monitoring.
Either way this was a hugely bad move for the police department. Now it looks like they charged the guy in retaliation and are trying to cover up misdeeds by their own personnel. The defense will want to play the tape for the jury and they'll get to see the officer's unfiltered conduct. Not his well-dressed, well-mannered courtroom testimony. He might not have had a damage award case if they hadn't arrested him, but they might now if the jury is convinced the police acted out of malice. Dumb and dumber.
Smartest move the prosecutor could make would be to throw out the case, but none of those involved strike me as particularly gifted in the PR department.
So much for the Supreme Court counting on improved training to keep police conduct in check.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You can put up a security anywhere you feel like. But as soon as you start recording audio, wiretapping laws come into play and you have to be a lot more careful about who & where you record.
Yupp, they can tape you, but you can't tape them. Welcome to the United Police States of America (UPSA). :)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"This conversation is being recorded"
What's the deal with the Harry Potter reference? I mean you went through the trouble of posting the entire article just to slip in a *spoiler* about Harry Potter? Kinda lame if you ask me.
The greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue - Socrates
Here's a question. How does this arrest effect all the businesses that exist that use video cameras for security purposes? If their going for these people, they damn well better go for all those businesses and such!
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."
Hard to argue with Gannon.
...if the police haven't done anything wrong, they haven't got anything to hide?
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Yes, I know there are stupid cops: Because of the testosterone boost that absolute power gives, I would venture to say that the a**hole level is higher than the general population but while we can allow idiots to work at McD., Chucky Cheese or even the Senate, it should be zero tolerance for people who enforce the law.
Youre statement is remiscent of people who say that "we all know that mexican cops are corrupt" as if it makes it ok.
Cop broke law? Punish him. Actually, punish him more harshly because he is supposed to 'set an example'.
Hey, if we use that BS excuse to lambaste illiterate athletes like Allen Iverson, I can sure use it wtih cops.
Let's say that none of this ever happened and the guy manages to catch someone breaking into his house on tape? You think that if he took the tape downtown that he'd be arrested for illegal 'wiretapping' (how stupid is that anyway?) and the guy who broke in would go free? It's possible, but I doubt it. The only reason they are prosecuting him is that the cop probably was really a jerk and was caught being one on tape.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
It wouldn't be too hard to argue that consent was granted the moment he stepped onto his property. Unless he had a warrant the cop was tresspassing on private property and is himself committing a crime. You can't claim to be a victim of a crime by commiting a crime that results in you being a victim.
while it's legal to videotape people on your property where a sign is posted, or in any public place where they have no expectation of privacy (like out in front of your house) it's illegal to audiotape them without their express consent.
Maybe where you live. Where I live (Florida) it's legal to record video without ANY warning whatsoever. Recording audio requires notification, but a notice posted on the door is sufficient.
To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
any one else get transported from the "stuff that matters" page to a Cops episode?
Cops come to your home and basically abuse you, the you go file a report and _you_ get arrested ... due to the fact that you collected evidence no less.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I can not even start to fathom how many officers are going to be suspended or fired after this Fiasco.
It doesn't make sense to permit video recording and prohibit audio recording, since you can recover what was said quite reliably from video alone.
You see, it's all well and good for those in power to spy on ordinary citizens, to tape them or sift their data. But apparently turnabout is not fair play, because the same powers cannot abide anyone watching them. Of course, really, public servants should expect to be watched even more, and every citizen should have the right to tape their interactions with the Powers that Be.
That said, this is probably more a local power trip than a big dastardly conspiracy. What worries me is, these attitudes are percolating throughout society.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
He should have posted this to the public domain instead. Now he doesn't even have the tape anymore if I read correctly.
This is a fascist country. Why do people insist on trying to use the system to help *them*? They aren't companies.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
The charges will be dropped at some point, especially considering the the ramifications of trying to persue them precedent-wise.
The police are using laws in 'creative' ways to punish this man for giving them a hard time. He has already suffered the indignity of arrest, had to be bailed out of the holding cell, and will need to take time to deal with the stupidity of following through.
This will make others afraid to complain which is the primary reason the man was arrested. The best hope is that it backfires and they actually have to pay a large sum for wrongful arrest or whatever the plaintiff lawyers come up with. Then people will look forward to complaining for the big payout.
The police were too brazen.
Over here in California,you can video record pretty much anything you can see unaided in public. (You just may not be able to use it in court, or sell it to a paper or something depending on the specifics), but the recording in public itself is not illegal.
But you can't record the audio.
I wonder if he would have been OK if he hadn't recorded the audio.
See now, if a greivance of this magnitude commanded a punishment of heads on pikes instead of the cops paying money that wasn't theirs to begin with, then we might have something.
I've lived in nashua for a long time now, and over the past 5 or so years, they've been putting up cameras all over the place at major intersections, highway ramps, etc... and I've not seen a single sign stating that i'm under ssurveillance... Does this mean that I get to sue the city of nashua under the illegal wiretap laws?
yeah... live free or die man... *grumble*
--- no sig to see here... move along.
I think some serious reading between the lines is required. Granted, it does sound like the police were out of hand, but it also looks like his son is going to have a hard life too and I suspect the son learned his tatics from his father. Maybe the father could have avoided the entire mess if he had focused on getting his son under control. I know this will shock a lot of /.'ers, but there are a lot of people in the world who lie. All too often people claiming to be polite, soft spoken, and innocent turn out to be rude and uncooperative. My experience with cops is that people who conduct themselves politely are treated fairly.
Quite true. I have long suspected that the single most effective defense against most abuses of power is a camera (at least in civilized places where public opinion matters). Without video footage, no one will believe the abuses really happened.
Ubiquitous surveilance is often seen as a tool of big brother, but it can also be a tool against oppression as well. Imagine a society in which many people wear a webcam attached to an ipod-like device with a ring buffer storing everything the wearer sees. Then imagine you are a corrupt police officer who likes to intimidate and/or abuse certain people. Would it give you pause if you knew your actions were quite likely to show up on the news the next day?
What was this guy thinking?
That we live in a country of laws, not "he who has the guns wins".
I skimmed over the law and, although IANAL, what I saw were restrictions on THE STATE, not on private citizens.
Feloneous
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
First, the definitions as listed in the law.
As early as the definitions section, it is quite apparent that 570-A is to be applied specifically to State, County, or City employees (i.e. Peace officers), or to persons involved in any business venture. The reasoning behind the law is so that the state, county, or local government cannot just start posting surveillence on their citizenry KGB-style. Same thing goes for business owners.
Given the definitions listed within this law, and considering the fact that not once does the law prohibit the citizenry from placing their own private property (non-business) under surveillence, the defendant has nothing to be afraid of. At this point, without reviewing pertinent case law, it would be quite obvious that the defendant has nothing to fear.
Of course, this could be slightly different when I finish checking all applicable court decisions. Updates will follow soon.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Rodney King is turning in his grave.
...make sure you have something on them.
(posting anonymously for this one)
It worked for me when I tried to get a bunch of Boston & Mass. State Police officers to stop drinking and tossing their empties on our street. After complaining to them directly and failing to have an effect, I went out with my camera the next night and positioned myself prominently. One confronted me and showed me his badge, which I deliberately requested to look at in detail; and when I recited exactly what I'd watched them do over the past several minutes, I sensed him noticing my camera. Second thoughts, maybe? He left, I never made a report to his superiors, and the problem fixed itself.
P.S. I subsequently have had wonderful experiences (unrelated to any of this) with Boston Police officers patrolling our neighborhood. In one case I spent a day in court as a potential witness with a couple of officers who had helped me apprehend a break-and-enter theif, only to have the a$$wipe judge decline to hear me or the cops and set the sentence to time served. So this guy with a 20-year, 14 page criminal record is back on the street ready to be picked up again. Anyway, just wanted to be clear I support these guys in general, and lament that the liberal, spineless Boston judicial system doesn't make their jobs any easier.
Not to mention a gullible grand jury.
Voice your outrage.
s px
http://www.ci.nashua.nh.us/content/1121/default.a
Here's a link to the Nashua PD Website...
Nashua PD
I wonder if they could come up with a crime to charge us with for visiting their website? Maybe we should find out.
Don't Tread on Me
However being charged with a felony is a BIG issue. If you are charged with a felony it is enough for some jobs for you to be denied, also it will permanently be on your record, even if you are not convicted or the charges are dropped. I was charged with two class B felonies that were bogus, everything ended up being pled down to a misdeamnor and even then it was a no-lo plea. Every job I've applied for since has come back and asked me about the charges. Once I go through and explain what happened. The care less that I have a conviction for a Gross Misdeamnor and care more that I had been charged with a felony. Charges alone can ruin your life, most dont know it, but its true.
Another example is you cant get a Federal CWP if you have ever been charged with a felony. Doesn't matter what it was, or if you were aquited.
-PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Is that a NH law? I thought you were able to record a conversation as long as one of the participants, for example *you* the person recording it knew about it.
Consent doesn't mean explicit consent. That's why companies notify you calls "maybe be monitored or recorded for quality assurance". That's so that if you live in a 2-party state, you cannot bitch. You've been informed, your continuation of the call is implied consent to the recording. Same thing with weapons laws in most states. In the states that allow concealed carry, you usually can't carry on any premises where the owner asks you not to. However they needn't actually ask every person, a sign counts.
The cops have the legal right to come to your door, as does anyone else.
Depending on where you are, they might be trespassing once you tell them to leave.
Cops can follow you even into your house without a warrant if they can be considered to be in "hot pursuit" but that's pretty vague.
He's not trespassing until he comes inside (or crosses your fence boundary - in most places this requires that your gate be present, closed and locked) without your consent.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think we should all email the police dept. in question and tell them what they are doing is wrong. Here is a link to email them: http://www.ci.nashua.nh.us/content/1121/default.as px, just select police dept. from the drop down.
If Gannon had had the Logitech Internet Toilet-Cam (tm), we all could have had a laugh if he'd invited the detective in, you realize?
This is private property. You're allowed to setup video/audio tape on your own private property.
That's about the only thing that occurs to me. They are all liberal as fuck, and it's really strange because the majority (i.e. fucking all of them) of people who wrote the Constitution lived in NE states.
Thomas Jefferson would be more likely to have cameras watching the cops. God damn Benjamin Franklin would probably be making pornos with French chicks, but when he wasn't, he'd have cameras on the cops, too.
Democrats are pretty fucked up in this day and age. It's strange that they are all socialists and/or communists, whereas 200 years ago, they were libertarians.
Anyway, if you live in New England, you deserve whatever kind of fucked up socialist agenda they force on you.
For some reason I just read that as NiMH man.
That's what I meant. Been a while since I read The Mote In God's Eye, which is a great book, on the off chance anyone here hasn't read it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Assuming the tape isn't "lost"...
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
What property owners need is to put up signs amounting to an EULA stating that all those stepping onto their property, by the act of doing so, give their permission to be video taped and have any audio they produce recorded.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I took a photograph of an officer today. I think he saw me, but I had the phone-cam hidden inside my jacket. Felt like I was in the cinema (pirate joke, never mind).
You know of anywhere I can post it? No wait, don't say here. Email it to me.
Now where is that PGP key?!
Is that any officer should carry some kind of audio/video recording badge.
Is that you're _always_ breaking _some_ law. They just need to figure out which one and charge you with it. Or you _could_ be breaking some law, so they charge you with it and you have to fight it and it bankrupts you. Sort of like our wonderful 21st century medical system.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
That being said, grand juries are essentially useless (I say this as having served on one).
They make no determination of the law or potential defenses (the equivalent of jury instructions given at trial). They are only told one side of the story (by the DA's & Cops).
In this case, the GJ could have gone something like this:
The real issue is that we need some reforms in the GJ system.
Somewhat amusing and related...
:)
The cops in my state were very encouraged and supportive of private citizens' efforts to have cameras installed in police cards. That is, of course, until they realized that those same cameras could be used to check up on the cops themselves. Then they resisted.
Not that I'm justifying the cop in TFA, but if a cop has a search warrant isn't he allowed to "trespass", or are you not calling that trespassing? Mightn't an extreme Libertarian in such a state not bother checking to see if a search warrant exists and just fire away? Seems one step away (if that) from legalizing resisting arrest.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So he likes to tape himself, big deal! As a former prostitute, he probably has a lot of experience with a handicam. And he was kind of a member of the White House press corps, so he was sort of involved in video tapings. I mean ... wait, sorry, wrong Gannon!
This explains what is legal and not in NH. Seems ridiculous to me. I have to think you should be allowed to record anything on your property. Otherwise, wouldn't things like sound activated alarms be illegal? Seems like these cops are blatantly trying to cover themselves. http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/newham pshire.html
They Are Night Zombies!! They Are Neighbors!! They Have Come Back from the Dead!! Ahhhh!
The last time I got pulled over (for speeding) I happened to have a videocamera in the car. I didn't turn it on, but I did position it in the passenger seat so that it was aimed out my side window. I never mentioned it to the cop, but he seemed to take note of it right away. He was exceptionally polite to me, and let me go with a warning. That's never happened before.
Let's play fair here, coppers. If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to mind having your actions monitored and recorded, right? Right?
I am in favor of all putting webcams in all public classrooms and on all uniformed cops. They are our public servants. If they don't like being watched, there must be a reason.
The law was put on the books for just the reason the police used it for. You catch em red handed and make you the criminal. Next time YouTube it and let the web do the work.
Unfortunately I think this is where we're all headed. Should you use the sort of evidence "the authorities" use against citizens to prove misconduct on their part and you are either a "terra-ist" or are violating felony wiretap laws...Even on your own property? wtf..
Maybe Mr Gannon should have said "The Camera is there to keep America safe from "terra-ists." - that seems to be the "get out of constitutional protections free card" du-jour...
Maybe Mr Gannon didn't know that America is fast becoming a fascist kleptocracy...
This just seems ridiculous, the guy was on his own property - I would think he'd have a better chance of pressing trespassing charges against the "officer" then some corrupt police department that is being terribly abusive with their autority would have of charging him with these felonies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not down on all cops or law enforcement officers - there are some who do a great job and respect the law and constitution, but this kind of thing is becoming all to common.
This authority is vital to national security, possibly to our very survival, and the only thing that could possibly void that power would be the election of a candidate from the Democratic party. If that unlikely event were to come to pass, then yes, the President would be capable of committing an illegal act by authorizing actions in violation of written law. In, and only in, a Democrat-run White House is the President capable of authorizing or committing an illegal act.
What the hell is with cops lately? Honestly I've worked with the boys in blue on several occasions in my capacity as a consultant.
They've all been great guys. But I guess I saw their good sides. The guy is within his rights to record on HIS property. I can tell you that the PD will be seeing a fat lawsuit very soon.
I had an idea the other day related to this, and wanted to gather some opinions. Basically, what if there was a service where if you called a particular number, it would automatically save the call as an mp3 and post it online? One could imagine having the service on speed-dial, and if you were about to enter a situation where you thought you might be abused by the police or some-such, you could just hit a button in your pocket and record the entire thing as evidence. Of course, there could also be many applications for such a thing besides reporting on police abuses...
Does such a service already exist? What would be the legality of it?
In any case, with increasing technology, and cameras getting ever-smaller and cheaper, it seems that something like David Brin's Transparent Society is inevitable.
That's a financial penalty that police officers do fear. If a seargent or lieutenant lost their pension (losing their job being a pre-requisite to that), you can be sure the remaining officers in that town will be seriously educated to avoid a repeat performance.
NH is a two-party consent state, where the two parties (or all parties, if more than 2) must consent to the recording (audio and/or video). The full text of the NH state regulations, along with penalties and exceptions, are in NH RSA CHAPTER 570-A0 -a/570-a-mrg.htm
WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/57
PoliceAbuse.org investigates illegal behavior by cops. They have quite a track record of collecting video and audio coverage, they've worked with TV stations, and they're having some real effect.
They could use some web site design help.
We don't see enough ignorant talk that you have to make the same generalization that he was? Good job!
- Kal`Goblez
It's not the video, it's the audio. The law isn't really aimed at CCTV systems but telephone recording. The problem is that a mike is a mic and a recording medium is a recording medium. Simple solution? Don't record audio.
This isn't the first time someone who has videotaped the police to show police misconduct was charged with wiretapping laws. In Champaign, IL (2004) a few black youth were trying to make a documentry about the treatment between the local police and the black neighborhood. Obviously, since it made the police look bad, they were charged with unauthorized audio recordings.
article
Imagine a society in which many people wear a webcam attached to an ipod-like device with a ring buffer storing everything the wearer sees.
Earth by David Brin.
Good read.
and then from the article
So does a foot in the door preventing it's closure constitute trespass in your book? It does in mine. I doubt it, but I wonder if this guy was smart enough to make a copy first. If he did, wouldn't we all love to see it up on Google Video....?
Since when cant we videotape what happens on OUR OWN FUCKING PROPERTY?
WTF?!?!?!?!
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Woah, how'd I get to digg?
Anyone else find it sad that such a hovel in a bad neighborhood would be worth nearly $400k?
That guy needs to sell that place, pick up and move south, where he could live in a gated community for half that...
That only works if there are others willing to take the job. Right now, there are less qualified candidates than there are police jobs available.
The NH law says that All parties to the conversation must consent. If the article is accurate, this should be a pretty quick case, and the poor homeowner is screwed.
SM MBL-VIR looking 4 SIG 4 LTR. must be DDF, no 420, SD ok.
Citizens can't record cops, even while giving warning of doing so, but cops can record citizens with no warrants or disclosure. WTF is wrong with the back-assward country? All I can say is, you guys better stock up on ammo.
I said no text! Why did you look? Are you implying something about my integrity?
since the motto of NH is "live free, or die", you'd think there'd be legal precedent there for mr. gannon to haul out a BFG and arrest the cops for criminal trespass. friend of mine from college was from NH, and she told me in her town it was legal to march into the mayor's office, pick him up by the scruff of the neck, and throw him out on the front steps. being from montana, i remember being instantly and terribly jealous of that.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
For the record, my dad is a cop, his wife is a cop, my grandfather was a reservist, my great grandfather was a cop, and my sister is soon to be a cop. So I know a little bit about cops.
I'm pretty sure we're missing part of the story here... this guy sounds like he's looking for a confrontation with police, to cash in. Everyone's always the victim, it seems.
Sounds like the police have given him what he wants, then. I mean, really, even if he is trying to set up a confrontation, he can't "make" them do anything. The fact that they think they are trying to prevent him from filming them says it all. Good cops doing the right thing and dealing with a cluetard wouldn't make their situation worse!
It would be almost impossible for him to capture a situation on video where the cops look like the bad guys unless the cops were actually the bad guys.
Strangely, I've never had a bad run-in with police. And, strangely, I treat them with respect, and understand they're doing their job. I don't immediately go on the defensive and start ranting and screaming about how I'm being mistreated.
So? I've had lots of positive experiences with the police. I've also had negative experiences with the police. I was respectful in all cases. I only became defensive when I was accused of lying or legitimately harassed. And, as I said, my family is full of cops. I know the difference between being harassed and a cop just doing his job.
Some cops realize that most people are honest and good. Some are dishonest, power hungry, or otherwise mentally and emotionally challenged; they think everyone is like them and treat them the way they really deserve to be treated.
And by the way, respect is a two-way street. Good cops earn respect and don't do things which give cops as a whole a bad reputation.
people get arrested because of violation of a LAW AGAINST WIRETAPPING!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA give me a break! if you arrest him, you have to arrest the whole NSA and phone companies
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I hope every citizen in that town files lawsuits for the same behavior for the dash cameras that every one of their police cars has.
Specialization is for insects. - R.A.H.
Almost everyone keeps referring to the "sign[s]".
... Janet, didja hafta scrounge for cash, or didja just think maybe Mike could use a time-out?
What "sign[s]"? FTA: the Gannons posted warnings
Yeah, that could mean sign[s]. It could mean a post-it note inside their screen door. I don't think we quite have the "facts" of this case, just yet. I think it's doubtful we'll ever truly know how to sort out the following statements:
Karlis didn't know about the security camera until his second visit, when Michael Gannon told him to "smile" for the camera, police reported.
and
Janet Gannon said her husband explicitly warned officers of the camera, later adding "smile," as a joke.
What did [whoever] know, and when did [whoever] know it? It might make a big difference.
Having said that, I certainly agree with the prevailing sentiment that so many aspects of this case are ridiculous; mostly the behavior/retaliation of the police, but also a family that clearly has some "problem kids", and, of course, the law that might prohibit a citizen from videotaping on his own front porch. You never get the easy case of the clearly law-abiding citizen against the clearly law-breaking police. Still, this doesn't have to be a hard case (as in, "hard cases make bad law"), depending on what we know when all the facts are known.
I'm also just very curious about the time gap:
Michael Gannon "was arrested Tuesday night"; "Janet Gannon spoke with The Telegraph by phone Wednesday afternoon, before going to bail out her husband".
Sooo
OK, maybe NH law prevents bailing someone out before they spend a night in jail, but it still seems curious.
Both sound and audio eh? Funny, I kinda thought they were the same thing
I called the Nashua Police and asked if the article was true. They said it was. I said that is outrageous that they would do that and that the wiretapping act has a very strong wording that implies that it is for the "interception" of communications.
I asked if they had been contacted by the ACLU yet, at which point the officer hung up on me.
They are a corrupt bunch of bastards. A guy installs a security camera on his property because of crime. A camera readily perchased from Walmart. Because he excersizes his rights to require a warrent and not just let them in, and has evidence that they were abusive to him, they loosely interpret a statute intended to protect the privacy of electronic communications to include home security.
Bastards!!! Fucking bastards. What happened to the constitution? Jesus fucking christ, will someone step up and stop this shit?
The Nazi's would have loved police like this.
...or, as my mother used to say while she was beating me, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"
Stick Men
570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited
...
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
The only part open to interpretation is
II. "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.
Emphasis is mine.
Sounds like the police were within the law.
RSA Title LVIII, Section 570-A:1 states that the "Oral Communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.
Thus in order for a violation of Section 570-A:2 for intercepting an oral communication: 1) Must be expecting the communications in not subject to interception; 2) the person must be exhibiting this expectation; 3) and the circumstances must justify this expectation.
A sign stating that the area is under video and audio surveillence should be sufficient to destroy any justification for expectation, and consequently making the intercept of the oral communication not a violation of any clause in 570-A. The facts appear to indicate some sort of sign was present.
There seems to be a lot of blame to pass around. The cops overreacted to being disrespected and the dad is shielding his (seemingly) rotten son.
The article has some delicious irony in it.
"She said they installed the [camera] system in response to crime in the neighborhood, and at their house."
"Karlis was investigating the Gannons' 15-year-old son in connection with a June 21 mugging outside Margaritas restaurant, for which two other teens already have been charged, according to police reports. The boy also is charged with possessing a handgun stolen three years ago in Vermont, and resisting detention, police said."
Sound like they just need to videotape their kid.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
A police officer, in one of the 50 states, out of 200+ million people, acts like a jerk... and this is taken as "insightful" evidence that the USA is becoming a police state?
Sheesh. I'm surprised you didn't slip in "Bu$h i5 teh 5uxx0r!" as part of your comment. That seems to be the approximate level of of the political debate most people are operating on these days.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
If you can't use cameras in your private places...that limits quality of the flick to PG-13 I'd say.
~CYD//Nothing to see here, please move along.
On March 29, 2006, students at Mackenzie High in Detroit staged a walkout to protest the lack of textbooks and tiolet paper. 32 were arrested, with 8 charged for disorderly conduct, and 1 for inciting to riot. Some parents were fined $500. here
You have no rights in a crappy neighborhood.
Detroit Cops used to regularly round up anyone nearby a murder and hold them in cells, and although they signed a concent decree saying that they wouldn't, when they cut the budget, they made sure to cut the people responsible for monitoring those decrees.
When cops began random searches of the people mover, there was no protest or question.
Relax, all of these efforts to curtail citizens rights have kept the homicide closure rate at a remarkable 45-50%, while the number of homicides rises faster than the city's population can dwindle.
I am in the process of filing a complaint against the Peel Regional Police (Peel Regional Police) (Toronto and area) for seizing my camera, blackberry and looking through my stuff in the trunk---ALL THE WHILE I SAID I DO NOT CONSENT TO A WARRANTLESS SEARCH. I repeated this about 5 times and kept reminding them.
They even went as far as to delete the audio recording that I had set on recording of them and they deleted the movie I made of them tail-gating each other and not-signalling lane changes.
I then asked to get all of the officers names and badge numbers and the supervisor said NO!!! I said I demand the information as I am entitled to it, but they took off. The supervisor gave me only 2 of the 3 officers names even after that!
I am ready to post this on my website tonight. This happened to me in Brampton, Ontario ---by the Pearson International Airport.
Canada isn't as free as you think. What am I do? How can I get the media to take up my story?
Just check out how corrupt the Peel Police are:
- " Misconduct Allegations
Between 2005 and 2006, Peel Regional Police have been sued numerous times for police brutality and misconduct. As well as having some of their officers face serious criminal and Police Services Act of Ontario charges.
* $9.5 million lawsuit filed by a black police officer, Const. Duane Simon, an 18-year veteran of the Toronto Police Service, alleging false imprisonment, abuse of public office, injurious falsehoods, negligent investigation and breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. [1]
* $3.6 million lawsuit alleging seven off-duty officers attacked seven students from Notre Dame Catholic Secondary School, and that the police are covering up the identities of the officers involved in order to thwart possible criminal prosecutions. [2]
* $14.6 million lawsuit filed by former Toronto Argonaut football player Orlando Bowen, who says he was assaulted and falsely arrested by a group of negligent and racist officers at a Mississauga night club. [3]
* Const. Sheldon Cook, 38, was arrested by RCMP officers at his residence, where it's alleged 15 kilograms of cocaine were found hidden in a storage area of his home. Cook is also named in a lawsuit by Orlando Bowen. [4] [5]
* Const. Roger Yeo, 36, of Mississauga, is alleged to have watched and followed several young girls. Yeo was suspended with pay and was charged under the Police Services Act for discreditable conduct, but has not been criminally charged. [6]
Accusations of police abuses involving racism have plagued this police department since the late-80s. When a black teenager from Jamacia, 17-year old Michael Wade Lawson, was shot to death by two Peel Regional Constables on December 8th, 1988. [7] "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Regional_Police
So can I sue a convenience store with security cameras that also record audio? I never gave them express consent to record me.
I wonder about adult acts that are being committed that we're not being shown. Come on, adult video bloggers unite.
And every store and bank in New Hampshire that has a video camera is violating the same law? This is absolutely the silliest arrest I've read of in a long long time.
You must live in a gated community or something. Out here in the real world many police are corrupt, or power mad assholes, or just generally rude and disrespectful people. A close friend of mine is a cop, he talks shit regularly about some of the other cops he works with - in the past 5 years several of them have been fired for breaking the law. He says it was the same way at other departments he has worked at. Many cops are not particularly smart and signed up to be cops for all the wrong reasons. Many of them hate various types of people and will behave very differently depending on who they are dealing with - for example one of my friends former co-workers would treat every male in his late teens to early twenties like they are a drug smuggling pedophile terrorist, for whatever reason he just had something for them and would always go all out against them and try to pin anything he could on them. It got to the point where it was like he was seeking them out and would pull them over for the dumbest shit like going 5 miles over the posted limit on an empty road, then he would just get himself totally worked up while he was talking to them and provoke them however he could and coerce them into consenting to searches. It was seriously bizzare behavior but the chief never gave a shit, he just wanted to sit in his office all day watching fucking TV until he retired. That is just one story among many of imporper behavior, it's not even the worst story. Most police officers really have no respect for anyone, they just fake it when they have to.
Every confrontation is with some fucking jarhead who's pissed off he didn't wax an Iraqi on his last tour and you sure as shit are going to pay for that. The only thing about this that amazed me is that it didn't happen in Raleigh North Fucking Carolina. Check it out - this week we sentenced a woman to 200 hrs community service for killing a handicapped old lady in an argument at the check out line. But if the cops pull you over in your car and they determine you're 'resisting arrest' you're looking at anywhere from 3 to 5 different G or H class felonies. I think you should be able to get one good taser shot off at them - for free.
http://www.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments .asp
Tell the governor you are boycotting New Hampshire Tourism and products because these abusive and bullying tactics being used by the police are unacceptable in a state that use's the slogan "Live Free or Die."
Where do I go to determine if it is legal to record video from my home? Or from my car? Do I need to post signs? I have always been perplexed at how the average citizen can possibly be aware of all the laws that apply in their area. Shouldn't the government have an obligation to tell its citizens what the laws are?
I grew up in Nashua, and my family has had experiences with the Nashua Police department, and I doubt there's a great deal more to the story than we know. From my reading of the story, it looks like this man's son may very well have been guilty of some crime, and the police may well have had every reason to be investigating him. At the same time, it is entirely within the character of the Nashua police to pull crap like this. It looks to me like the officers in question were conducting an, shall we say, aggressive investigation, and were not expecting to have to go through the formalities of things like warrants and court orders for what they can usually get by intimidation. This fellow calls them on it, and they respond by attempting further intimidation to put him back in his place. The result will be that the charges they brought against Mr. Gannon will be tossed out, the police department will be sued, and the city will settle for some suitably large sum of money. My family's property taxes will go up next year. Who knows if anything will be done about his kids, since if the cops really had anything on them, they should have gotten warrants, and have now likely mucked things up enough that no charges will be able to stick anyway.
Now for what has shaped my opinion of the Nashua police. Several years ago, my younger brother, along with two of my younger sisters, were riding their bicycles along Main street in Nashua. There was construction going on at one of the intersections, and so traffic was being directed by a member of the Nashua Police department. As my siblings were crossing the intersection, the police officer decided to direct traffic on the street they were crossing to move through the intersection. My brother was the middle of the three riders, and, because there was construction, neither he nor the truck driver saw what was happening until after my brother was struck by the truck. My brother was knocked unconscious, and his bicycle was mangled. Fortunately, he recovered with no additional complications beyond 10 minutes of amnesia.
Now here's where the honor of Nashua's finest comes into question. In the police report of the accident, the officer stated that my brother was in the lead, and riding recklessly. It also reported an accident geometry which was physically impossible, given the position of the construction, the truck that hit him, and the direction he had been traveling, but which served to absolve the traffic cop of any responsibility for the collision. The name of the officer who directed traffic that day was mysteriously absent from the report, and the police department refused to acknowledge that there had even been an officer directing traffic that day, much less provide his name. CYA all the way. It worked on us because my brother was ok. Looks like it ain't gonna work so well for the police department in this case.
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05 D0847P.pdf
triggers download of the court's decision allowing a private citizen to videotape state troopers he believed were conducting truck inspections in an unsafe manner. He was arrested by the cops for taping them, fined for harrassment, and continued to tape at a later date.
The defendant claimed that he had the right to tape their activities and to speak out on issues of public concern under the First Amendment. The federal court found the defendant was protected by the First Amendment as he videotaped the police. The court also found he was arrested without probable cause. The court awarded him actual damages of $35,000 payable by the troopers jointly for violation of his First Amendment rights and $2,000 from each cop for punitive damages.
That only applies if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. When standing on someone else's private property with a sign that reads "You are being recorded by surveillance", or whatever the sign said, you have no expectation of privacy.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
So, if the police try to bust down your door without a search warrant, you should have every right to kill them. Let the courts sort it all out later (and, of course, be prepared to fry if you claimed a right you in fact did not have).
Of course, the killing of police officers will certainly bring about reinforcements. That's when you bring in the heavy artillery, and remotely detonate all the explosives you had stashed in strategic locations, like the dumpsters beind city hall, all the while broadcasting an amplified voice requesting that your constitutional rights be respected. Personally, I prefer kilowatt CO2 IR lasers on a turret in the attic to keep the engagement local and minimize collateral damage, but powering them is a bit hard.
Naturally, the state has more resources than you do, and you will likely be apprehended or, more likely, killed, but not before you remotely detonate the dirty nuke you had hidden in a cargo container in one of the many ports -- what's it cost to buy an old Russian nuke these days? $40k? It's not like you need an ICBM to deliver it. You did plan ahead, didn't you?
If the result of one cop acting like an asshole was a good chance of tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed in the collateral damage of your retalliation against the state for violating your constitutional rights, you can be sure there would be a hell of a lot more restraint on the part of the state, regardless of the morality of such a response. (Innocent people? Bullshit! "They" clearly are standing by while the Constitution is erroded to the point where you have to use such force, and are most definitely part of the problem.)
The bottom line is you have no constitutional rights unless you are willing to fight and die for them. And frankly, if you don't have them, you might as well be dead. And if you're going to die, might as well have company.
I've often thought that homegrown "terrorists" like McVeigh had somewhat of a legitimate complaint against corrupt goverment. His big mistake was in the premature use of excessive force before a standoff escalated to the point where it might have been justified (i.e. you send rocket grenades into my compound without a warrant, I blow up your government building).
I would love to see someone who's constitutional rights are being clearly violated not take it lying down, but stand up and fight back to a degree that leaves the corrupt government scared shitless, all the while broadcasting the events as they unfold.
Of course, that requires planning (and expense) for a confrontation that one hopes never happens.
We welcome you to the country where home doors are opened, police officers are polite, and we don't need cameras to check our private parking spot.
;-)
Please try to resist being smug. As much as I find a lot of what the US gov't does disagreeable it really irritates me when fellow Canadians brag about how much better our lot in life is in comparison with our southern neighbours. I thought we were supposed to be humble folk, but it seems some of us have developed a superiority complex. Historically Canadians have had trouble "blowing their own horn" so we should be sure to note our accomplishments. However, if you must brag, please be realistic. Canada has its share of challenges too:
* A recent behavioural study of major international cities on "politeness" placed Toronto fairly high on the list (Montreal, the other Canadian city did not do as well but did alright). Guess which city beat both? NEW YORK CITY. That's right. Most notably, New Yorkers were significantly more likely to open a door for a stranger in a public place. I guess that means "doors are opened" in NYC
* There are places in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal where I most certainly would NOT leave my doors unlocked. OTOH, I don't think people ever use their locks in most of Montana, North and South Dakota, Maine, etc. I know this isn't apples-to-apples comparison but most Canadians live in a major city as is the case in the US (I grew up in rural Canada and yes doors are still open there too). The point is that Canada isn't THAT much different in this regard
* I've witnessed RCMP officers and city police be somewhat less than polite in dealing with people too. Some of it has been widely publicised (Anyone remember the pepper-sprayed protester in Vancouver? And Prime Minister Cretien's cavalier response with the joke that he prefers his pepper on his dinner plate?). When the Hells Angels held a patch-over ceremony in Alberta a number of years ago, anyone who rode a Harley and was dressed the wrong way was badly harassed by the cops.
* Years ago when a Quebec separatist group kidnapped and later killed a politician our "beloved" Prime Minister invoked the "War Measures Act", which allowed for police to detain anyone without charges and suspended many other civil liberties. This was in effect nation-wide, even though the FLQ Crisis only presented a direct threat to savety in Quebec. RCMP in places far away from Quebec took advantage of the situation and we had "troublemakers" in small town Alberta held in custody for days without charges.
* Speaking of Quebec, this is a province that has "language police" that will fine you in your shop doesn't have French on it, or if some non-French language on your signage is too prominent.
* West of Ontario, it is illegal for farmers to sell most crops to anyone but the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers who protested this by pubically deciding to sell their grain directly to someone else rather than through the wheat board had their doors kicked in and were dragged to jail--and had their trucks and grain seized. Sone farmer in Ontario does the EXACT SAME THING? Sure, that's OK--the act applies only to BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I could live with a government imposed monopoly, distasteful as it is, if it applied equally to all Canadians. As it is now this situation is a travesty.
* Well, I still live in Canada and I know that a lot of private parking spots are equipped with cameras here. In the past year or two there has been a dramatic increase in vandalism (mostly grafitti and car prowlings) and as a result more outdoor surveillance cameras are going up, and developers are putting out a lot more security guards in under-construction subdivisions as theft and vandalism increased there too.
OTOH Canada has a lot to be proud of too:
* Big, expensive and ineffective gun registry notwithstanding, there is WAY less gun violence in Canada than in the US
* Canadians ar
If that unlikely event were to come to pass,
Spoken like a true typical Repuglican who is that 39% who thinks that W the monkey boy is doing a good job. You guys run everything into the ground since you've have control of all branches of government the last six years and you're probably going to say that it was Clinton who did it because emotionally you can't move on. Can't take responsibility for sh*t and you wonder why you aren't respected.
The argument of "the Democrats are worse" is pretty much run out. It can't GET worse than now. Frankly I thank W for being man responsible for giving Congress back to the Democarst come fall. I firmly thaink that most Americans would not only welcome Clinton but would allow him to shove his cigar anywhere he wishes.
When Clinton lied, no one died. It's gets more true every day.
Protect and and Serve may be the 'motto' on their car doors but it is NOT their 'Mission Statement' at this point in time in space..nor has it been for too long now...
I garden on a large corner lot in a medium size 24 hour tourist town in the southwest. They kiss the tourist butts and bark like a fox during 'high seasons'. Locals however receive blustery, obnoxious and arrogant attitude in lieu of protection or service.
We are two blocks from the border of a 'redevelopment area' which they have run the hookers and drug dealers into in order to avoid any interaction with the "Tourist". These are 100 year old homes with some families having 3rd generations living here.
Daily, the Trash, tag garbage cans, walls, vehicles whatever strikes their ignorant fancy. They slash holiday decorations, rip up whole plants and throw them on the street, in the gutters or the sidewalks.
I got sick and tired of finding drug paraphernalia in my bushes, under rocks or stashed in my yard.
I called the police when I found the 5th drug kit consisting of some weird little container covered with foil, white powder residue in a wad of plastic wrap and a syringe sans protective cap stuffed in the tall grass up under the lip of a decorative boulder in my parkway.
The officer was annoyed to begin with and found my report of same as 'un-interesting' at the least and when I insisted he walk to the boulder, pulled back the grass and and "SEE"!
His reply was: "Careful when you pick it up to throw away"!!
End of interest! So much for protect and serve.
I said as much and asked do I have to buy a camera to tie into my computer, mount it in the yard and hang a sign that says:
Smile, you are under video surveillance, his response was to smirk and reply....suit yourself..hopped back in his air conditioned car and didn't even dispose of the drugs or paraphernalia.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
police are public servants of the state government, and as such they are not treated the same way with respect to monitoring of audio/video that ordinary citizens do. The same way that the police have the ability to record their communications with the public, the public also has the right to record their communications with the police, or any other state government agency acting on the public's behalf for that matter. This recording occurred on the private property owned by this individual, so just in the same way that a corporation can monitor the actions of employees working on their private property, citizens also have this right. There was a sign in plain view with clear notification that monitoring was taking place on the private property of this individual.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LVIII/570 -A/570-A-2.htm
There is the law (NH RSA A:2) cited in the police report.
It is pretty broad, making any interception of "oral communications" without the consent of all parties illegal. There are a few exceptions, but mostly just for telco employees and police officers. Dashcams are excepted.
There are no exceptions for home security installations.
I do understand the need to prevent rampant recording of oral communications without consent, but there has to be exceptions allowing people to protect themselves in their own homes. Especially from police harassment. Otherwise what is to stop the development of a police state?
"Live free or die", eh? Well, looks like a lot of NH residents are probably on a collision course with death.
Any geeks live near this guy and want to put the footage on the web? It might be more damning if these cops' actions are out there for all to see.
In fact someone could offer to make those webcams, not just cams that record on videotape.
A small project to help protect American Freedom...anyone up for it?
Can't we be both?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If the police officers saw the posted sign and continued to carry on a conversation, that sounds like consent to me.
Good. Maybe this will encourage "the taxpayers" to take some responsibility for their governance?
Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
I see no mention of a search warrant. They were under no obligation to let him do anything.
Let me guess though. You were'nt serving them food in your own front yard. I hope someone opens a soup kitchen next to your place right after you buy or sign a long lease.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He was charged with violating statute 570-A, a class B felony dealing with wiretapping and eavesdropping. In NH, all parties must consent to audio recording. See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lviii/570 -a/570-a-mrg.htm for details about the statute. From the statute:
I may not agree with the charges, the officers behavior, or the statute, but legally NH may have a case against him. I don't know if he could argue that by stepping on a the porch, the officer consented to being audio recorded by reading a sign. It would be intersting to hear an acutal lawyers opinion. The detectives may even try to use these charges to try and get him to co-operate reguarding his son.
P.S. I am not a lawyer, but I did play one in mock court once in High School:)
A private place is one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from unauthorized surveillance.
The guy had signs posted. I wouldn't reasonably expect to be "safe" from surveillance in a place where there were actually signs stating surveillance was used...
The guy is a (*&$%&^_)!@#$( to cops because when he was robbed, he was told to move.
That would piss me off, and I don't care who your are, or what branch of the government you represent that is in appropriate.
However, there is much to wonder about these people. If they were so good, why did their children become eff ups?
We don't know enough about this story to determine who should have been nice to who. What we do know is that being arrested for suveying your own house is so wrong, it could only be twisted into the right by George dubbaya
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
So if I want to never be able to go out to a restaurant or a bar without increasing my chances of lung cancer I should move to NH. If the restaurant owner wants to allow people to pump carbon monoxide into his restaurant thats ok too? If McDonalds wants to let other customers spit in my food, thats their right, because it's their private property.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
so currently:
1 it is ok for police to lie to you about anything they want. but you can get charged for lying to them...
2 it is ok for police to wiretap, record any citizen they want, without a warrant, but it is against the law to record a police officer harassing you?
i expcet the second part to get thrown out in court. you can easily say to the cops that by talking to me, coming on my property etc you agree to be recorded. dont like it? you can fuck off then. it looks like they did not get a warrant to sieze the cameras after all.
if the pigs did that to me i would give them a week to make things right, before this became the next viral video on the net.
wont settle, fine, let the public see what they did, this will help keep a judge "honest" during any trials that come out of it because they will not obviously help the police with everybody watching. it would even be a good thing to tell the judge an old colombo quote "you may want to hlp the police by going easy on them, but believe me, you wont be helping them by doing that."
police are expected to be polite and a role model for children. not some slick hustlers thay try and use the law to make life easier for them. if they dont act honorable, the reputation of the entire police force suffers. this effect adds up, until the force is mistrusted and hated by the population. this will cause honorable police to quit, and what will be left are the corrupt ones. this is already happenein, and the usa is slowly turning into mexico, with the highest levels of police corruption yet seen.
It's stories like this that make me glad I live in Canada. It also confirms my reluctance to set foot into the USA.
I don't think there is any question about this being abuse of power followed with an 'oh shit, we got caught - better try to intimidate/bulley the person that caught us and maybe it will all go away'.
The real sad thing is that in this case it's not just a single cop but apparently the entire police department or else we would have never seen this story. The cop would have been reprimanded, case closed.
It would be interesting to see just how many cameras are operated by this police department for the explicit use and subsequent disclosure of the recorded information at trial. It would also be interesting to see how many cases where brought to trial where surveilance footage was used to convivt the (real) bad guy.
I can't believe that anyone in their right mind can expect privacy in a public place with video cameras sprouting like mushrooms left and right. Furthermore, I can't see how anyone in their right mind could think that a homeowner recording what happens on HIS property is acting in an unlawful manner.
Count me in under the column of "thoroughly disgusted by this"!
So much for this new product
Next product:
Car Navigation System Takes No Pictures When Patrolmen Are Near.
Everything you describe would be OK in Old America. Now in New America, since you jackasses voted Bush in, the Constitution is about as valuable as a used piece of toilet paper, since using the 911 attacks that he orchestrated to justify deleting the citizens' rights to _everything_.
Terrorist this, NSA spying that, the United States is the scariest place on Earth.
Dude, that is NOT a ghetto. I drive practically right by there every day to work.
It's just a typical working class neighborhood.
I'll get pictures if it'll make you happy.
Why stock up on ammo? They aren't attacking you with bullets.
You can stay holed up in your fortress while they change the laws around you. After a period of time you will be guilty of something, and end up in Guantanamo Bay.
Happy 4th by the way. Don't set off any fireworks, those are considered weapons of mass destruction now.
I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
Why did the Free State project pick New Hampshire and not Vermont? Is it mainly because of the distance from Boston?
Vermont's already doing pretty well, by libertarian standards. It's the only state where you can have a civil union with a member of the same sex and carry a concealed weapon without a permit.
No such witness shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence, nor shall testimony so compelled be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding (except in the proceeding described in the next sentence) against him in any court. *** He is a witness to the crime of police harassment and the breaking of search warrant laws....this tape cannot be used against him because it is evidence of police wrongdoing!!!
Say what you will, but power corrupts, especially when you get to carry a gun.
A long time ago, a former acquintance of mine made a remark regarding a pal of his which has become a cop; he mentioned that he started to walk differently, as if he owned the block. When he told that to him the guy said that that's what they are being taught.
Now, I must say it as well, a lot of the cops I see around do project too much "authority"; they don't seem like someone you would like to deal with. You get a similar air of superiority when visiting a DMV, or any other gov. office. I don't like it, and I'm sure a bunch of other people don't like it.
I also have an issue with how some cops drive, running red lights when convenient, without any apparent need to do so. I had two ocasions when I was fairly close to collide with a van and a car. One time, at dusk, I was at the intersection, and I got the green to go; I started going, and then I suddenly noticed this police van that was creeping ahead; it starteled me because I wasn't expecting it. No lights flashing, no siren. The second time was when I was making a left turn into a two way street which had one lane each way. There was a column of cars in the lane opposite to the one I was turning into, and when I was making the turn, I noticed this police car slowly driving in my lane; I had to serve a little bit in order to avoid a head on collision. Again, no lights, no siren, nothing -- they just wanted to abuse their power and get somewhere quicker.
It's very hard for me to have respect for people who abuse their power in such a way.
P.S.
Ambulance drivers are the worst offenders when it comes to abusing their right of way.
It's called a lawsuit.
Please don't call me a jackass. I did not vote. I can not vote since I am not (yet) a citizen. So, don't blame me for the mess. (I'dve voted Libertarian if I could).
I came to the U.S. on a valid work visa, have received a labor certification (which basically says I did not take an American's job), and am awaiting a green card. I hope to become a citizen and would quite happily renounce my current citizenship (I believe that one does have to choose where one's loyalties lie).
I came here because I believe in the supreme law as layed out in the U.S. Constitution and the principles behind the Declaration of Independence.
My son was born an American, and might some day have to die for that Constitution and those principles.
Was I so mistaken in believing that faith and trust in principle could not drive good people to overcome corrupt governments? Do none remain that long for liberty more than life iteslf? Is despair the new opiate of the masses? Is cowardice now noble? Is America lost?
Tell me it isn't so!
So long as one voice cries for freedom, so long as one heart yearns for justice, there must be others. So long as such yearning smolders, there must still be hope in the time of hopelessness, that the flame of liberty can be reignited.
I just didn't think the task would fall to a foreigner, but then again, it always did.
This was with Food Not Bombs and the whole point was to do it in public to draw attention to the hunger problem. It was in the UN Plaza, not near any houses or businesses. Not that that should matter to anyone with a shred of human decency. If you want to play it like that, I hope you lose your job and are forced onto the street.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
July 1956
22 MORGAN ST
NASHUA, NH 03064
(603) XXX-XXXX
I wonder if I should call and ask for a copy of the tape.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Okay we have a name tag Sealbeater, sitting on a spam domain filled with google adwords links, and the sig is, wait for it... Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!! I'd be a bit more cautious about throwing around accusations of assholery if I was you, my son. Glass houses and all that. Thankfully I am not, so although its something of a gaffe to feed the trolls, I am feeling generous today.
The poster in question was referring to that particular case, not to broadly general rules of conduct. Also you refer to "cops" and "civilians" as being something different, which leads me to believe that you have a view of the police as being some sort of military force out to dominate your world with an iron fist. Inferiority complex much? Of course, as you so eloquently put it, survival of the fittest, and you do have the fucking guns, apparently, so the police are just a rival militia to you.
I seriously doubt this will make a dent, Davey Crockett, but for the benefit of the other readers, let me tell you how it is. The police have to deal with serious assholes all the time. They wake up at 2am for their shift at 3am, and straight away they are dealing with halitosis laden drug dealers, drug addicts, wife beaters, child molesters, thieves, career criminals, fraudsters, you name it, they come eyeball to red glazed eyeball with them. People that you would literally cross the entire town, never mind the road, to avoid, people for whom prison is a holiday home, or in more extreme cases a brothel. And here's the kicker; the police have to play by the rules. If they don't, the lawyer will let said scumbag roam free, and the last thing you want is Johnny biker boy cruising the streets looking for your home address with a hard-on.
Of course the nasty types don't feel any such need to play by the rules, so let me ask you. After ten years of waking up at 2am and not going into a nice office to look at the HR lady's shapely backside, but wondering if you will make it home in more or less one piece, what kind of person will you be? I'll tell you, it depends on the person. Some police officers deal with it well, some have outlets for their frustrations, some have family that support and understand them. Some don't or just don't deal with it well in any case. So that's where good cops go bad; avarice, stress, fear, or just plain frustration at seeing the same shitheads walking out after two years and doing the same things to pretty much the same people. Before you start bawling like the survivalist microbe that you are about the bad, naughty cops, you walk a mile in their shoes. Or even better, walk ten years in their shoes.
Yes, there are bad police officers, and they need to be taken out of circulation just like the career criminals. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the worst idea anyone could ever have. Be polite to the police, and generally they will respond in kind. This has been my experience in every case.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Do you know how many police have fought having video recorders in there patrol cars? Do you know that these recorders are there to watch the police as much as they are to watch you and me? Do you know how many police officers have been fired due to dash mounted recorders? Do you know how many people have sued and won because of dash mounted cameras? Do you know how many police have "accidentaly" dammaged the recorders because they didnt want them? If the police fight to keep the cameras out of there patrol cars then you should fight all the harder to have them put in because if they dont want them they are obviously doing something they shouldnt be doing. Whats even sadder is officials who dont want the cameras put in because they know how bad there police REALLY are.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that police officers, as public offical in a public capacity do not have the expectation of privacy. As such there is no violation of law.
You cannot violate something which does not exist.
President Clinton did lie about a blowjob, and I don't care. At all. It's completely insignificant in the balance of world affairs. The current President lies about torture. It wasn't under oath, so isn't impeachable, and that distinction is about as morally insignificant as you can get. It's wrong to torture people and then redefine the term in mid-sentence and then pretend you're being forthright about what you're doing. The way those people are being treated would be called torture if it was happening in our country to our citizens, and we know it. It was called torture before we were doing it, wasn't it? If it was your mother or best friend being interrogated in Dallas with these methods, you'd call it torture.
Where is the moral contumely that we were basting eyeballs-deep in during the Clinton impeachment? Where is the outrage? There isn't any, and you know exactly why--Bush is a Republican, therefore whatever he does is lily-white in the eyes of Republicans. Morality, legality, propriety, everything is subordinate to politics. They'll impeach a sitting President over a blowjob but sit placidly by while a President authorizes torture, secret prisons, indefinite detentions, warrantless wiretaps, etc. So spare me your moral equivocations. I don't care if Clinton got blown on film every Sunday at noon while holding the King James Bible in one hand and a joint in the other--if torture doesn't make your moral compass wake up and take notice, there is something fundamentally wrong with you as a human being.
Perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree on this, and you are deeply disturbed by what the Administration is doing. If so, you have my apologies. I'm just so sick of the faux moralizing about Clinton, coupled with the complete blindness on issues that really do matter. Blowjobs, even adulterous ones later lovingly covered with perjury, are a miniscule speck, an electron-sized mote, of immorality, compared to torture of human beings. To bring up Clinton and his interns in this context is to color yourself either as a shameless political hack or a pretty despicable human being.
As ploce are public servants, employed by us via our tax dollars, should we citizens not have the same right as other employers to monitor the behavior of our employees? If our phone calls at work, our work e-mail, and where we go online can be monitored, and we can be filmed at work, by our employers, with or without any additional notification, then we should be allowed to monitor the police. Otherwise their power goes unchecked and along comes corruption. The word of one cop has more weight that three citizens, unless there's a videotape the backs up those citizens.
Those surveillance cameras are not hidden. They're pretty clear. And that man has the right to protect his family. If someone broke into his house and the proof he had were tapes, would he be the one charged with a felony while the burgler got off because the evidence would be inadmissible? yeah, let's punish the good guy and let the bad off the hook.
We've got to question what the officers did that they do not want that tape shown. If they were orderly and didn't threaten or act like asses toward that family, then there should be nothing to fear. But if they arrested a man and he's been charged with two felony counts simply for recording, then it would make sense that there is something to hide. They must have acted out of line.
And this man being arrested does not indicate that he did anything wrong in the way you might be thinking. Hostility, trying to attack an officers.... No. If simply recording is against the law, then they can arrest him for that and nothing else. He could have been entirely peaceful, as well as his wife and sons, and still could have been arrested. And now, even if all charges are dropped, this man still has an arrest on his record. And if his wife bailed him out via a bail bonds place, then they are out the 10% paid to the bail bonds place. Money lost, embarassment, a record of arrest....
Sad, sad day when taking steps to ensure personal safety in a non-violent way results in grounds for arrest.
It's a girl!
The cops-are-dicks-no-they-aren't-you-are argument is getting to me.
The point, the thing, the idea to ponder, is that the Surveillance Society we've been told was inevitable, and that we should just shut up, get over it, especially if we've nothing to hide, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE AUTHORITIES.
They can chip us, line the streets with cameras, track us with mini-drones, track our cell phones with E911, eventually GPS and track our cars, take our DNA and fingerprints, track our finances, our phone calls, our text messages and chats and emails. They are even now set up, with the courts greased prior to the introduction, to use fMRIs as super-lie detectors and someday even crude mind-scanning devices. All these things we are supposed to get over, 911 911 911.
But TRY PUTTING A CAMERA ON THEM AND YOU WILL GET YOUR ASS DRAGGED TO COURT AND PUT IN JAIL, ACLU BOY.
The New Surveillance Society is for the proles, not the overlords. And don't trust Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Renquist, and Thomas to rule such behavior unconstitutional; they will be fully on board.
Get over THAT.
Except like in many cases the tape will be lost of some how get a large magnet placed on top it by accident.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
In Nevada fireworks are illegal I'm told (by the GF who lives there so should be correct). Except on Indian ground, so go to Pyramid lake if you want to set off fireworks...
Yes I know that there are some fireworks that are allowed for 4th July but basically it seems that only officla functions can use 'em. I'm sure someone will post the offical line (and a few rants of course lol)
Posting anon as I have mod points and have moderated some of this thread...
These types of systems should be mounted in automobiles, to catch the rogue/rude/incompetent cops that pull people over and behave unprofessionally.
Please mod this puppy up.
70 million hits. Hmm, more in my other post.
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
The problem for you is because you were still convicted of something. While this may not be entirely fair, you still comitted a crime which, though originally charged as a felony, still resulted in a conviction.
I don't know what you did, but my first thought would be "oh, so you only hit her with your hands, not a bat.." or "it was only your first robbery", etc.. considering this is slashdot, could have been hacking.. but so, you weren't convicted of felony hacking, you were only convicted of misdemeanor hacking..
None of this may be anything like it happened, but employers see you as a liability.
If you'd gotten off scot-free, perhaps this wouldn't still be following you around so badly.
Note: I'm not criticising, nor do I pretend to understand, I'm just saying how I'd see it as an employer.
If police treat people like assholes, then you can expect people to return the favor. If cops behave incompetent, they deserve the verbal abuse they get.
About 20 years ago, a friend of mine was visiting a nearby town. Maybe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he was pounced on in a convenience store by 3 local cops, causing him several small injuries. These 3 cops were abusive both verbally and physically. It wasn't quite a Rodney King level of beating, but it did require a visit to the hospital, which was denied him for several hours. His "crime"? He opened one of the soft drinks he was carrying while standing in a long line at the register. How do I know his story rings true? My friend IS a police officer. He was just off duty, out of jurisdiction, and not in uniform.
Police officers are (supposed to be) trained in dealing with abuse from the public, including physical abuse. Verbal abuse is something they are supposed to just shrug off as if it never happened. That I learned in a CJ class I took way back when I was in college. I wonder if it's still true.
I think it's pretty clear the tape showed an abusive officer. They saw it and they reacted to it on the spot. If the tape had shown a police officer doing exactly his duty and nothing more, why would there be such a reaction?
The police should have thanked Mr. Gannon for bringing it directly to them, and dealt with it as an internal matter. It was to their advantage that he went to them first instead of the local newspaper or TV station. Now, people will be watching the police and they will be taking their evidence not to the police department. The Nashua Police Department did all police officers throughout the country a major harm by this action. It's just plain disgusting.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Any person that believes that the state paid & armed thugs "police" operate with any consideration for the rights & liberties of ordinary citizens (read that "those of us who pay their salaries") has to be delusional. Familiarise yourself with the laws apropos members of the goon squads "law enforcement", & then compare the same with the laws as applicable to the common citizenry. It is long before time that the people rise up against the apes that are paid to keep the extremely small elite in comfort, while pillaging & murdering the citizenry at their whim. Truly unfortunate that the thug-monkeys in this instance were not instantly transformed to a maggot buffet.
damaged by dogma
Nashua Police
Nashua Police "Frequent Juvenile Questions"
http://www.ci.nashua.nh.us/ City of Nashua
Nashua - "Contact the City" webform
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
I mean really if you stop to think about it COPS can do just about anything they want to you (and your family). The State gives them this power with the public trust that they are not abusing it but even the smallest overuse of it over the standard rules that the rest of society lives by is illegal. Just think about how many times you see a COP speeding through a red light without his emergency lights on? This a small infraction but lets face it COPS really do believe they get to play by a different set of rules. Hey this guy is being funny and trying to get me and my partners in trouble with his video toys - lets see how funny he thinks it is when he spends a few nights in jail. This had to be running through the mind of more than one of the on-duty officers. I really think COPS that abuse their job related "access" should be punished to the extreme amount the law can provide. They should be made an example of each and every time. I mean really these are just a different type of thug that happens to be in a uniform. I really do hope those COPS that were involved get fired and have to work bagging groceries or construction which with out a badge and gun and "legal protection" is lifted all you get is a soft weak lump of sh ii ttt
I've never seen a store camera that recorded audio. And I've seen the security setups for a number of different types of businesses. The companies making the security recording equipment sell it to companies in all states, so they make most models video only, so they don't have issues in states with these restrictive laws.
In Nevada fireworks are illegal I'm told (by the GF who lives there so should be correct). Except on Indian ground, so go to Pyramid lake if you want to set off fireworks..
I live in Las Vegas, Nevada, and right now you can't drive a block without seeing a fireworks stand. But if you want a better price on them, go to the Indians.
Registered Linux User #404114 [url=http://www.punkoiska.com][img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/posbannercf5.g
Actually it is because of the charge. The conviction was called No-lo. I admited no guilt, and it was not by jury, it was taken as a plea agreement to avoid a possible conviction on the felonies. If you're staring at a felony and they offer a misdemanor thats a big freaking deal, felonies are guranteed prision time, loss of gun rights, voting rights, and its permanently on your record. Misdeamnor, fine and maybe jail, or community service, and after 2 years you can get it expunged. Note this was for an auto wreck, my car hit ice and I lost control. My fiance and I were the only two people seriouly injured. They charged me with a count of vehicular assault on her behalf, against her wishes, and another for a man that suffered a few scrapes. It turns out later that the second count was because he works in the prosecutors office. If you look at most any paper work you fill out for security clearances and jobs, it asks if you have ever been CHARGED with a felony. If you think there is any correlation between the law and justice, you're grossly mistaken, and for charges to be filed, the DA has to be on board so at that point its on your record for good. I've talked to numerous people about this, it isn't that I was convicted of the misdeamnor, they said the charge would still stand out on a background check. As it is I had to go have my gun rights reenstated because they just charged me which was enough to revoke them, has nothing to do with the misdeamnor, the felony charge was placed into the system so that bars me right there.
Now had they disclosed the fact that the guy worked in the prosecutors office I could have had it sent to another county where more than most likely the charges would have been dismissed. They hid this fact until I entered my plea agreement, and he was not listed as working for the prosecutors office till after it was all over. They will do anything they can to further their carrers and they dont care if it tank yours. Note if I was convicted of a felony, no professional engineering licence, no security clearance, nothing pertaining to engineering, and 2 years upstate minimum. Everything I would have worked for would have been wasted. Most likely I would have won, however even if you're innocent, there's still a chance of being found guilty. As I'm 22, with where this happend, I'd have a high chance of having a bunch of old ladies on my jury, please note the jury of your peers thing is BS, its usually homemakers and the elderly. If they think all the kids are just little SOBs that drive too fast, it doesn't matter that I was doing the speed limit and that the truck sped up or any other factors. Charges alone cause serious grief, and the worst thing about it is they can do completely bogus charges.
-PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
If any of you actually read the statute (and some of you have come close to touching on this) there has to be a reasonable expectation that your oral communication is in fact a private conversation not meant for taping. Standing in public or on someone else's private property does not equate to a reasonable expectation of a private conversation.
If it were truly the case, every single person using a video camera with audio on it in New Hampshire would be subject to the same charges. Retailers would be liable for selling those cameras ((b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use...) as they would be procuring another person to use the evil illegal device.
Plain and simple, the charges were meant to harrass the citizen, something their lawsuit should properly take care of in the long run. It should also keep 6 cops off their lawn once it's filed as to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Plain and simple, the man asked the officer to leave his premises. There was no warrant and he had no right to be there past the point of being asked to leave. That would be called trespassing.
A moderately decent lawyer will have this thrown out long before the case goes before a judge. Letter and Spirit of the wiretap law were not broken here.
Where's Link when you need him?
"Do I want power over other people? Hell no. I got involved after Sept. 11th. There was a need, and I stepped forward. What have YOU done?"
All of my life:
I have reported illegal behavior in my neighborhood, turned in illegal drugs, stolen property hidden on or near same, advised the local police when violence is occurring in my vicinity and guess what? Been ignored, talked down to, like I was taking up their valuable time with issues beneath their interest and on at least 2 occasions treated like what I was reporting somehow insinuated MY participation in said reported incident.
Finding a hit and run victim in the road late at night and placing my car in a position capable of protecting the victim until the police and paramedics arrived bought me 4 hours of interrogation until a bartender wandered out of the bar at the end of his shift and attested to the fact that the victim had been utterly boiled upon leaving his establishment and it was hardly likely that I was 'a perp' but just the unlucky fool who did the right thing and reported the find.
AND: I did not suddenly decide to be a good citizen on 9-11. I was raised to be one from childhood.
THAT'S what I have done!
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It simply wastes your time and truely annoys the pig"
...are paramilitary forces now. It has changed over the last two decades or so, and that is their number one recruitment, ex military with an "us versus them fucking civvies" mentality. The WORST people to hire for being CIVILIAN police are career military "kill em all" types. A REAL police job has NOTHING to do with military actions, yet that is their deal now, that's who they recruit. then people wonder why you see cops acting like that.. Look around, all dressed in black, even little podunk towns have "swat" teams now, and the TV is non stop every night some bogus threat commercial with the stern frowning power trip cops warning you to buckle up or don't do this or do that. Plus random roadblocks, about as totalitarian as it gets, one step from general "re education" camps.
Personally, I got no use for cops anymore, although when I was younger I thought they were more or less fine and needed, now all I see is power mad steroid pumped (yes, a lot of them are addicted steroid aggressive types, you can tell *easily*) redneck skinhead drunks working as mercenaries for the top 1% priveleged elite. Screw 'em. They wouldn't know a Constitution if it jumped out of a budweiser bottle and bit them on the ass. All they know is "follow orders". That's it, mercenaries. They have no idea of the difference between a "born-with right" and some government law BS. Follow orders. give orders. sieg fukkin heil.
The system is totally broken, and has been for a long time now. This is just another indicator, heading more and more to the secret police/military state. Ever go to a demo and see cops with no badges on, and no way to tell who they are? There's a reason for that. Now you can't film them on your own property, but THEY want the ability to film you, tap you, bug you, stop you, demand ID, make you jump through hoops all the time? Police state action, the US is getting to the point it is no different from any banana republic, just bigger and they have more high tech toys and weaponry now.
That being said, its dissappointing that (at the moment) the next post below your one is still a +1 but is just as redundant! ;-)
(Innocent people? Bullshit! "They" clearly are standing by while the Constitution is erroded to the point where you have to use such force, and are most definitely part of the problem.)
Well said.
"That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Business people, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependant on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Property that is "open to the public" is not "private" in a practical sense. It is owned privately, but open for public use. That said, if we happen to both show up at the same restaurant, do you honestly feel that smokers have a right to subject others to the poisonous effluent that results from their addiction? I don't. If people want to smoke on private property, they can go home and knock themselves out.
I have been no the wrong side of an investigation a couple of times, and mostly because I had done something wrong...I was never ONCE mistreated by the police/cops. Mind you, this was many years ago, but I have had speeding tickets, and a couple accidents (not my fault of course) and not once were they rude, bad, or otherwise. Anytime I have dealt with them, they have been respectful, polite and courteous. Now, I am off to smoke my bong :o) Kidding!!! Really, I appreciate the job they do, and usually with a smile.
:o)
BTW, I live in Dallas, TX. and my home address is.....
----- I have bad karma for a reason! -----
The statute in question.
First, I am not a lawyer. I am a law student and this analysis may not be correct and should not be relied on for anything whatsoever!
There are at least two interesting legal questions here. First, is this arrest based on the facts available a proper application of the statute? Second, is this application of the statute Constitutional?
The part of the statute that I think the police were attempting to use is...
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person:
(a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication;
This translates roughly to you are guilty if without everyone's permission you record telecommunication or oral communication. For the purpose of a guy recording something the video is not a problem here, but the audio could be.
I would speculate that the police are accusing the NH man of recording audio (oral communication) of a police officer without the officer's consent. The NH man asserts that he made the police officer aware of the recording. The police don't necessarily agree with that. This is a question of fact that the courts get to sort out. If the officer was aware of the recording and continued to converse he would have assented to the recording. See State v. Lott, 152 N.H. 436. If the officer assented to the recording there is no violation of the law.
Without addressing the constitutional issues, there is a law here against audio recording of persons without consent of all parties and the police are theoretically attempting to enforce that law on the premise that the officer who was recorded did not consent.
Now is this application of the law constitutional?
I will assume that this interaction between the family members and the police took place on the door stoop, and not inside the home.
For purposes of seeing things and hearing things one's door stoop is normally a public, not private, place.
People have a First Amendment right to witness and record by videotape police activity in public. Does this particular application of the First Amendment extend to audiotape of a conversation with a police officer in public (door stoop)?
However, there is also a question of a reasonable expectation of privacy that a person has in his or her conversation. This comes up more frequently in cases involving the federal wiretapping statute that is similar to New Hampshire's, but perhaps not quite as broad. 18 USCS 2510.
The Ninth Circuit (out west and not controlling in NH) has dealt with these situations some. One case involved the videotaping of a police chief speaking over police radio in a park. Johnson v. Hawe, 388 F.3d 676 The state court ultimately found that the police chief was not covered by Washington State's Privacy Act.
Some cases have held that remarks made in a store and captured on videotape do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. See Commonwealth v. Rivera, 445 Mass. 119, 129 (Mass. 2005). The US Supreme Court held that a person does "not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of the store where the public was invited to enter and to transact business." Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 470 (U.S. 1985).
However, a door stoop is not a store. A door stoop is a public place generally, but does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a conversation on a door stoop? This is what this case would turn on if it were under federal wiretap law. This could depend on how far the door stoop was from the street or sidewalk. If someone could have walked along the sidewalk and heard the conversation it is unlikely that the conversants on the stoop had a reasonable expectation of
What if the recordings were clandestinely tampered with (editied, lost, damaged, what have you) while people (judges, jury) assume that the recordings are tamper proof?
...
Then you have people (judges, jury) that believe the police have indispuatble, but actually compromised, evidence! The judge or jury could then wrongly convict!
OTOH, am I reaching too far? Is this a reasonable concern? Because...
Sometimes I give myself the creeps
Sometimes my mind plays tricks on me
It all keeps adding up
I think I'm cracking up
Am I just paranoid?
Or am I just
From my reading of the law in question there is no way he should be charged with a felony as the law states it is only a misdemeanor if you are one of the parties in the recording.
I have been issued a speeding ticket - on the way back to work after running a guy home when his car wouldn't start. It was 1:30 in the morning and 40 below. I worked at a bank. I was stopped at a red light behind another car. When the car didn't move I tooted my horn - because I needed to be back at work.
The cop behind me flipped on the red lights - asked me where I was going and when I told him back to work at the bank he didn't beleive me so he gave me a speeding ticket and told me to tell the judge. Like an idjot I paid it.
I have been arrested when I was the witness for assult and battery on a young woman. This guy in the bar punched her in the eye and the punch would have knocked down a heavyweight boxer. I called the cops. They didn't talk to the victim. I could have identifed the asshole who hit her. Instead they told me to F-off and when I asked if they were going to talk to the victim they arrested me.
Since I am a single parent (widowed) and my kids were quite young then - they were just besides themselves with worry when I didn't come home. The cops would not let me make a phone call.
There have been other occasions as well.
I certainly do not ever go out of my way to make trouble. It just comes looking sometimes and the thing is the cops expect you to not question their decisions no matter how ill thought out they are.
This is what the story is really about. The cops like to have all the power and sometimes they abuse it.
A young woman who is a friend of mine and who is rather attractive had a cop investigate her all the way to pulling her files from Revenue Canada. Of course she cannot prove he did this. But he knew things about her that only Revenue Canada would know - according to her. So her question is who do I call if someome is stalking me? Certainly not the cops because they are doing it!
Likely the type of issue in the story is going to become more and more prevalent because people often are harrassed and sometimes blatently charged when they did nothing worng. The cops have been a more or less closed knit group for a number of reasons including that sometimes they do face some pretty dangerous criminals. So when a member transgresses it is their natural instinct to support the chap.
What we have is a power struggle developing - its that simple. People have to record and fight for their rights. While there are many good apples in the police force there are also unfortunately too many bad apples. However the fear of facing a judge is something no cop relishes. Mind you I sometimes think they enjoy forcing members of the general public into this situation even if we are just minding their own business and not doing anything wrong.
There are other issues. Probably for financial reasons many of our cities are turning the police force into a revenue center. Thus we get red light cameras and photo radar and in this city cameras set for summer stopping distances in the middle of the winter when there is glare ice. Apparently its ok for the city to break the laws of physics. But what of the happless driver who gets trapped by a 2.6 second yellow?
Meanwhile there is a misdirection of the police forces because white collar crime such as fraud and fraudulent consealment are allowed to go on and even IF complaints are made the police claim these matters are civil when in fact its under the climinal code.
There is a LOT of cleaning up that needs to be done and its going to take the work of a lot of honest conserned citizens to do it. It going to take some fighting as well. One of the first steps is probably to increase the accountability of our police forces.
I could not have say better. That's strange that a country who are reffering itself as the most democratic and free place on earth is probably one of the least. I mean in congo or somalia, you expect corruption, and people know it. In US, there is corruption (see exit poll from last two elections) but people don't think there is. It's worse! When the top is corrupted, don't expect some low IQ policeman do the work as we expect it.
"Fuck the police"
This link:
a tes.html
http://www.rtnda.org/resources/hiddencamera/allst
seems to cover the various recording laws.
Just in case you wanted, the number to the Nashua, NH Police Department is (603) 594-3500.
Terrorist this, NSA spying that, the United States is the scariest place on Earth.
Some places that might be good to check out for your relocation: Columbia, Somalia, Iran, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Algeria, Palistine, Mexico, Laos, China, Iran, Pakistan, Malawi, Haiti, Sudan.
Keep us up to date on your move in your Journal - it should be enlightening.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Someone mod the parent up.. and check out that video while you're at it
My only experience with cops has been:
/.ers would call it an elementary school) and that I wouldn't want to live with the fact that I'd killed a wee kid. As I drove away I was thinking that the cop was absolutely right and I was a prick for speeding near a school. I've never done it again.
1) Getting the paperwork done for an insurance claim after a burglary (I didn't expect the cops to find the burglar, but needed the police report to get laptop and other stuff replaced by insurance company). It was easy, and painless.
2) Being pulled over for speeding. Several times. They were polite, gave me my tickets and sent me on my way. One of them gave me a short lecture about the fact that there was a primary school nearby (I think most
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
Send complaints here. I did! http://www.ci.nashua.nh.us/content/1121/default.as px
Intelligent Design
http://www.ci.nashua.nh.us/content/51/98/555.aspx Google found this page. It includes this email address. LeciusE@pd.ci.nashua.nh.us I emailed them my thoughts. I encourage others to do the same.
What if the recordings were clandestinely tampered with (editied, lost, damaged, what have you) while people (judges, jury) assume that the recordings are tamper proof?
There's no reason why a copy can't be given to the interviewee (or his/her lawyer) immediately at the end of the interview. If this was a statutory right, then at least the judge/jury would have two copies to compare if there was a discrepency.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter
Read the first part of the chapter, specifically the definition for oral communications. The officer did not have the requisite "expectation" not to be recorded since there was a sign notifying him that exactly that would occur. Thus no offense occurred under the chapter. Consent does not enter into it.
The worst part is when she always follwed up with "But three lefts do".
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/us c_sec_18_00002511----000-.html
According to federal law, if one member of the coversation is recording the conversation, or gives consent for the conversation to be recorded, then it is legal to be recorded. So move to a state that follows the federal law closely, set up your cameras and post your sign saying "By stepping foot onto this property you consent to being recorded, in both video and audio."
Ta-da.
--- Holy Criznuggets?
the only things worse are the procecutors. These people don't care about justice, all they care about is self-aggrandizement and putting people in jail, regardless of fact or constitutional rights.
I hope this guy sues the police in that town into nothing.
This is theprice of freedom. If you require more freedom, you should give more money to America's Jewish friends so they can drop bombs on more apartment buildings and power stations in Gaza.
Such surveillance of law enforcement officials could be used as a tool for terrorism. It is necessary to provide our law enforcement agencies the protection of legislation preventing the videotaping, photographing, recording, note-taking or remembering of any police activity, so that any information that might be useful to terrorists can be denied to those who wish to attack America and the freedoms we hold dear.
God Bless America!
RTFM; please, I beg you.
You say that as if you think the other guy has any respect for the Constitution. Kerry would have been at least as bad as Bush, getting rid of the Second Amendment first. Without the Second Amendment, the general population has no means with which to rise up and take back the other rights that have been usurped.
From your link, I believe he did not surveil a "private place".
"Violation of privacy
It is a misdemeanor to unlawfully install or use "any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events" in a private place without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy there. It is also a misdemeanor to install or use outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such a place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside. A "private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access."
Blue wall, indeed.
No one is guilty. Just ask the people in prison. They'll all tell you how innocent they are.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Well, if the police were not doing anything wrong, why should they worry about having their actions recorded?
I swear to god we get closer to a fascist state every day.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Your correct use and spelling of 'aegis' and now 'equivocations' imply several things: you are using safari, your degree is soft science, and you either gay or a girl. On that basis I'm gonna have ask you to stop posting in political discussion threads, so we can get back to poo flinging and quoting Fox News and John Stewart at each other.
Free People should be able to use preview and GET THE URL RIGHT.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Burglar caught breaking and entering on home security cam.... to sue for violation of privacy?
Give a guy a gun - and he starts to think with his balls. Cops hate to be caught while thinking/acting with their balls. Once they get caught - they use the system to get anyone they think - they can get away with getting (like Rodney King).
Couple of years ago, the cops were running a so-called "values" program in the school system in Ontario and in many parts of the USA - the fake "values" program was (is?) called VIP ( Values Infliuences And Peers). The cops went into the classroom and belittled the kids, told kids to trust cops not their parents, told kids not to be friends with kids who had dirty clothes or dirty faces, told kids to never trust or believe their friends and on and on. The climax happened when the cop showed kids a fired bullet - the bullets that cops used - that mushroomed on impact - causing maximum damage. The cop also took out his gun and showed kids how to load his gun - which is illegal - can't take out gun unless action with a gun is necessary - arresting someone or killing someone.
When my daughter came home and told me what was happening in her class - I contacted the school board, the school prinicpal, the parents, the media, the provincial government etc. Then:
1) a private eye showed up on my doorstep with lawyer's letter from the cop in question - stating he (the cop) was going to sue me for libel (likely the police association was paying for everything here)
2) the cops started parking an empty cop car across the street from my house every night - the entire night.
3) the city then sent me a registered lawyer's letter stating they were going to sue me for libel.
I contacted my lawyer(s) - likely the largest law firm in Canada - also very conservative firm that represents many politicians and multi-national corporations. These folks charge $700 and hour!
I talked to above firm's lawyer that specializes in libel cases - he asked me to contact several parents who had children in my daughter's class to verify the gun incident. After I did verify - "my lawyer" wrote a letter to the cop and the city - and said "absolutely no libel here". It was cute - the lawyer didn't even sign the letter - just had it rubber stamped with the names of the three major partners (not signatures). I never heard from the cops or the city again on this issue!
I talked to the lawyer a couple of days latter after he sent his letter and asked him if I should keep working on this issue - he said: of course. He never did bill me! I was lucky on two counts here. That my lawyer got so upset with the cop, the cops, the city - that he decide to take them on as a public issue. And secondly, that I had been using this same law firm for several decades for business purposes - started with them when they used to be small potatoes. The cops and the city decided I was small potatoes (which I am) and never in their wildest dreams, did they think I would have a heavy duty law firm (that included former attorney generals) to represent me. It was an attempt by the elite's puppets at a SLAPP SUIT - to shut me up.
In the end the province passed legislation/regulations to stop and prevent the kinds of abuses by cops - that went on in my daughter's class. Does that mean that cops have stopped abusing other kids in classrooms in the same fashion as described above. Unfortunately - unlikely. Give a cop a gun.........
Your idea of two copies is a good solution to tampering problems. I think recording interactions is a good idea. I am on the fence, however, whether or not it's worth funding with taxes. Would a Free State Project member or libertarian oppose such a government service? What sort of person (idealogicaly speaking) would support such a service?
Has anybody heard if he had the good sense to copy the video and give it to other people before he took it to the police?
Also, does this mean the folks who film COPS and humiliate people are going to go to prison for recording people's voices without their consent? If videotaping counts as wiretapping and it's a matter of consent rather than knowledge, I don't see how almost all videotaping doesn't count. It would cover a lot, news crews, hidden-camera shows, etc.
In both criminal and civil trials in the United States, a plea of "nolo contendere" means that the defendant neither admits nor disputes the charge. This is also called a plea of no contest or, more informally, a "nolo" plea. "Nolo contendere" is Latin and literally means "I do not wish to contend." Spiro Agnew famously approximated it as "I didn't do it, but I'll never do it again." In making such a plea, a defendant accepts that he or she may be found guilty by the court without ever admitting to the act(s) charged.
This plea is only recognised in the U.S. In other common law countries, a criminal defendant is requested to plead either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". If a person fails to speak or uses different words, "Not Guilty" will be placed on the file as the presumptive plea. No formal plea is required in civil matters where paper pleadings are used.
so undercover cops with wires are all guilty of felony wiretapping?
...I got nothing.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
"""
12027. Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following:
(a) (1) (A) Any peace officer, listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the federal government who are carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting that officer. Any peace officer described in this paragraph who has been honorably retired shall be issued an identification certificate by the law enforcement agency from which the officer has retired. The issuing agency may charge a fee necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the agency in issuing certificates pursuant to this subdivision. As used in this section and Section 12031, the term "honorably retired" includes all peace officers who have qualified for, and have accepted, a service or disability retirement. For purposes of this section and Section 12031, the term "honorably retired" does not include an officer who has agreed to a service retirement in lieu of termination.
(B) Any officer, except an officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or subdivision (c) of Section 830.5 who retired prior to January 1, 1981, shall have an endorsement on the identification certificate stating that the issuing agency approves the officer's carrying of a concealed firearm.
"""
I see this in the California Penal Code alot.
Wow I am glad you brought up the wife beater reference. UH HELLO There are support groups JUST FOR ABUSED WIVES OF POLICE. HEEELLLLLOOOOOO http://www.abuseofpower.info/Standards.htm
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
Not to start a flame war, but requesting that charges be dismissed through a motion to the court would not be perjury, it is basically an official/legal bribe for something in exchange like community service/etc. I was speeding, but I did something for the community and in turn the charges were dropped. Of course this only works for petty things, but it is not perjury unless you lie under oath.
Sig: I stole this sig.
Parent is INFORMATIVE
"if you really were as innocent as you claim, you would have taken your chance before a jury."
That's an arrogant thing to say. If you have the choice between a small chance of severe punishment on one hand and much less severe punishment on the other, most people would opt for the less-severe punishment. Why gamble? Why do so many companies, for example, settle out of court? Is it because they are really guilty, and this is an easy way out? I know that is not always the case. Sometimes, the risk is simply not worth the principle.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
Idealogically speaking, I would expect pro-full-disclosure types to support such a move.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
You make NH sound most unattractive; libertarian notions of freedom in many cases boil down to social Darwinism, and that's not even pleasant for the winners.
In most countries there are quite a few pleas besides guilty and not guilty, in the UK for example you can plead: jurisdiction, law and autrepois among others.
My parents are cops. Growing up I used to think, well most cops are good cops and don't do much wrong ever, at least on the job. I would have thought the same of my mom who is just about the most giving person I know. I thought she was one of the ones who would never betray her oath. Well it turns out, even she was "dirty". She turned a blind eye to something another cop did - something pretty serious (though not directly hurting someone), because she felt bad for him and he begged her not to tell.
If my mom could do this, anyone can and it's a damn near miracle if any cop who's been working longer than a few years hasn't done at least something as bad as she done. And I'm sure my father has done worse because he doesn't even like to talk about it but I've heard bits and pieces that sound bad. A cop once told me about another cop that the reason he is so cheerful and such a likeable guy at home (where I would see him), is because at work he would beat the shit out of suspects. Neither of them are what I hear many people say about cops - people who bullied others in high school. Though I do expect a higher percentage than average of cops are people who were the bully types, or at least those who just stood there.
But that isn't the whole story. In my opinion, people can't be expected to be that "honorable", or whatever you want to call it. I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing. I don't think I would have done what she did.. but I can think of other examples where I might have - if it were a family member... if it were maybe not as serious. I think the problem is that they need more checks on the power that police wield and really drill them about what abuse of power means - even letting a fellow cop slide on a ticket, or using a special police permits while off duty to park where regular people can't adds to the injustice everyone has to live with. And maybe it means cops get other privs or benefits to make these other minor infractions seem less worth it. Maybe they should have their names published in a record of people who have betrayed the public trust or something equal to as much praise as a cop gets when being 'heroic'.
Most cops aren't bad people. They're just people who are given too much power, and in any sufficiently large enough town/city, too much anonymity. It's also a problem of living in large communities.
Okay, if anyone should have less rights when it comes to being video taped, it's cops. It's called checks and balances. It's the only way to make sure cops aren't abusing their rights. I make a recording every time a cop pulls me over and will continue to do so. Take me to jail, G-men!
or else!
hi,
;-)
Well this is the fundamental difference between open and democratic Europe against fascist monoparty (Dems and Reps are in essence the same thing) of USA. Been there I saw how sad this aspect of police is. More and more the police is taking an attitude of beating up the citizens in every way possible and in harsher ways.
For instance cyclists in NYC just want to advocate of the use of bikes in the city, which is something completely sensical and harmless thing to do not to mention the positive impact on environment. In turns out that the 'heroes' of NYPD are persecuting them and making mass arrests. This is simply defies any sense of civilization and puts NYPD as some sort of ancient cave man with zero brain processing power. In Europe is allowed to fraking ride a bike naked.
Anyways instead of making hapless rants slashdoters should take real action and change the system otherwise go live in Europe!!!
Heil Bush!!! Long Live The Fascist States of America FSA!!!
I'm not up on the LAW and things but,
Why is it a problem to video record, audio record, or take pictures of things, such as a cop at your house, when you yourself are witness to the scene and are 'recording' it with your own eyes and ears?
Is it simply a case of having distributable evidence? Gonna be a real shit if we eventually progress to sense-recording implants isn't it?
This kind of Police abuse has been going on ever sense I've been alive. There's one difference today. The Internet, Forums, Blogs...
20 years ago this man would have sat in jail. He would have had his hearing, the charges probably dismissed and no one would have ever known about it.
The Police would have gone on with business as usual satisfied they'd screwed up his life and would wait for the next opportunity to do him harm.
Today, their phones are ringing, 100,000's of thousands of people are contemplating their actions, the lights are being turned on and the cockroaches are scattering.
If there's anything that's going to save our country is the balance and power we as citizens can employ. I suspect our forefathers would like the Internet very much.
I emailed that city counsel over that a$$hole who abused those web software designers. I emailed and called when I saw those videos from Florida where the police refused to give out a complaint form. I'm calling the numbers posted here on this forum and will let them know what I think about this guy being arrested.
Many are saying, "Why do we do something". Well... the fact you're reading this story *is* doing something about it. Now, pick up the phone and call. Write a letter of support. Let that police department know that the lights are on and we can see them.
This is how changes are made.
-[d]-
Yeah, those pieces of crap don't even hold up in a strong wind.
[
In NH, (I lived there for a while) there only needs to be notification by 1 party, NOT consent.
Why do you think that every time you call a call center, help line, or place of business (big one I mean) ther eis the warnging that "This call may be monitored for quality". That is all that is needed, if you don't hang up you are givign consent.
That is why you ask for a transcrip tof the recording EVERY time you get off the phone from calling any place that has just such a recording. The person on the other end will usually say the call was not recorded adn that is that.
But, I might also add two things: slavery was permanent, and much more demeaning, and indentured servitude was often a contract between two willing parties. For example, individuals who could not pay passage to the New World would pay for said passage by agreeing to a period of bondage for so many years, etc.
Right now, I'm in a hotel room far from home and so I can't cite any sources. A pity. But the fact is, indentured servants often had nothing at all to do with their position. There were gangs of muggers in many port cities, especially in England, who would be paid a bounty for kidnapping people and delivering them to ships headed to the New World.
Also, as for permanence and such, the VAST majority of indentured servants were dead long before they would have earned their freedom. And remember, we're talking about young, strong people here, mostly in their late teens and early twenties, being killed in less than seven years. Why is that? Well, why do some people beat the hell out of a rental car? Because it's not theirs. Same principle here. A slave was seen as more of an investment, while an indentured servant was just passing through anyhow. There are primary sources indicating that many slaves were actually thankful that they were slaves and not indentured servants, because that status afforded them a miniscule amount of additional protection.
--saint
Solution: A sign for tree fitty.
Doh!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Looks like the USA might have some problems with the police and the police with its inhabitants.
I Would like to welcome you all to Norway. Here, all males must do their army duty for 1 year. Alot of peaople have their AG3 (equiv. of M16) locked up in their homes with 200 shots and 4 mags.
Norwegian police do not carry guns or nightsticks because they don't have to. When they do need it, they must require guns from a locker at the policestation after they have gotten the proper authorizations.
There might be 300 murders during a year, and less than half is due to guns, and most of them are related to drug issues. My point is, there is alot of weapons lying around here, but still almost no killings happen. The police almost never have to use guns.
why is it so? Because people respect the police, and police respect the citizen, understanding that they are serving them.
Yeah, this cop was a jerk. But, if you're trying to protect yourself from jerk cops, what's to stop them from lying about having a search warrant? I guess the home-owner/gun-enthusiast could always give him a chance to produce the alleged search warrant and then shoot when the search warrant isn't forthcoming. (Note: I'm not advocating this behavior - it is merely a hypothetical extension of the previous discussion on libertarian-style rights.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The official motto of New Hampshire. I guess it only applies to cops.
They're not meant to protect public servants (including politicians and cops)!
:-P
NH is getting rid of their "Live Free Or Die" motto on their license plates...now you know why
They videotape us all the time; cameras in parks, on the front of their cars, etc ad bigbrotherium. The real issue is that they don't want to be observed, because a good number of cops have no respect for the law and most of the good ones will either believe the wildest lies from the bad ones or back them up even knowing that they're lying. NOBODY lies more than a cop.
I've been arrested 5 times...3 were total B.S. and had more to do with me being a young kid who wouldn't keep his mouth shut, 2 were "justified" as I had marijuana on me.
But if I had audio and video of how these guys acted, ALL those cases would have been thrown out and I'd very likely have been able to sue for a nice sum of money. More surveillance of the police is absolutely necessary to stop the abuses that inevitably happen when you give people too much authority over others.
but the parent post is quite funny comming from someone named "JudgeFurious." Sounds like you're the judge, jury, and executioner.
wow, this is the first time I've ever posted anonymously. You and your Bush ilk are doing a great job with the FUD.
Yes, do not let the Democrats in, they will steal all of your guns!
Uhm, I thought that if you do anything in public, you have "no expectation of privacy." Isn't this correct? Not to mention, reporters do stuff like this all the time. Why are reporters not given any shit?
Also, if the assclown was on this guy's private property, he has the right to tape anyone he wants. Moreso that he had warning signs up.
Hopefully they made a back-up copy of the tape and can take this to the press to show what and how he taped the cop.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
If you're getting hired by the US Federal Government, and are going to have *any* kind of security clearance (and sometimes even when you won't), you'll have to fill out a form called an SF-86.
This document asks (in addition to a lot of very personal info) if you have ever been charged with ANY crime (except traffic tickets/moving violations with fines of less than $150), and if so you have to list the charges, the results of the charges, and the contact information for the court/jurisdiction the charges were brought. Even if you get supervision of something similar, you have to report it, even if it was expunged (except in a very specific circumstance).
And if you lie on the form, it's a Federal crime (18 USC 1001).
With the first link, the chain is forged.
A lot of people are just assholes. And, as far as I know, all cops are people.
I'm not saying this makes it right (I believe police should be held to a higher standard), but it doesnt' surprise me.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Another moral of the story -- police aren't there to protect you. They only come in *after* a crime has been committed. That's hardly protection. They can maybe *prevent* crime from occurring, but they really don't protect you. If anything, it's more like... "To protect and to serve our ourselves"
wax on, wax off
Last year, the police were recorded by a guy in my town as they were being obnoxious, roughing him up, etc. They confiscated his recording device and destroyed the tapes while threatening him with wiretapping charges. This hit the papers and blew up for a bit, and ultimately the cops dropped the charges and returned his tape. The tape was erased when it was returned, and nobody knew how this could have happened.
Fucking amazing.
Lots of petrified grits
There seems to be a misconception around "right" and "wrong". What the other finds "right" another man can experience this as "wrong". Clinton involved adultery and lying; which is in the christian way "wrong" because you cannot sleep with someone else when married. What Bush did ; seems to be a "right" way and without trolling I could almost say "the right christian way" since he seems to be "in touch with God" from what I've read...
;)
Although ; which God would take pain, torturing, abuse, war and agony over a blowjob? Maybe the better question now; to tear away religion as a factor: Which HUMAN would take pain, torturing, abuse, war and agony over a blowjob?
Interesting question I guess; since the majority seems to be agreeing with such mentality while their skin creeps over seeing the torturing tools from the dark ages and torturing of animals.
Still, I am not really suprised; since we also live in a time where a human life is less worth than a copied piece of music; since; you'll loose more copying a CD instead of raping or killing your neightbours. I'm totally not wishing of anyone to get vegatarian because of that cruel animal torturing but what I do wish is that people do mind their OWN life and RESPECTING other lives in the same degree as that you'd respect your OWN life; no hidden agendas breaking other lives. Guess that wish can be classified with "I want world peace"
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
On matters such as this, I am always pleased when my reply has already been said by someone else, thank you.
There seems to be a few more than that:
m l
http://papersplease.org/hiibel/facts.html
Now, they'll have no problem thanks to this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0622/p01s01-usju.ht
Soon you see commercials:
Your National ID card.
Don't leave home without it, or else!
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Almost always because they are really guilty. A company rarely settles when it has completely clean hands in the matter.
But that is a civil court.
You are talking about a criminal matter. And it's much more serious. No matter if you were completely guitly, completely innocent, or somewhere in between, you did what you thought what was best for you and nobody can judge you on that. It's your life. Judges and juries are unpredicatable, and the outcomes are not always fair. So, somtimes it makes sense for an individual to settle.
Just as the other poster stated that "you would not have settled if you were innocent", neither would the DA have let you plead down if you had done something truly heneous.
I imagine there was some fault, some politics, and some just downright bad luck mixed into the whole incident. There usually is.
Then again, I wasn't there, so maybe the whole thing was a witch hunt. It happens.
I am just glad that you are here to post with us. Sucks that it's on your record, but you seem to be handling yourself well despite the matter. Kudos.
I'd like to see them apply a "wiretapping" charge to someone with a hand held camera - even if I do record voice!
Probably not. The police are probably allowed to do it under some "it's okay for us because we're the cops" law. On the other hand, there are some restrictions on cops, like if they do manage to break the law while collecting evidence it is supposed to be inadmissable; if a private citizen does the same thing, the evidence is admissable, but they of course can be charged with their crime.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Well, to be fair, the town -is- nicknamed "Trashua."
So all those companies that paid off SCO really did steal code from them?
Even though its a difference between civil and criminal court, you must remember they do the same thing when settling. A cost benifit analysis. I'm sorry, but if I got a bum jury, which with where I'm living *the sticks* could very easily happen. So minimum for the felonies if I was convicted, *even if only one count, both counts are used for sentencing,* was 1 1/2 years in prison. That means upstate, for a judgement call, truthfully what I was guilty of was driving outside the conditions, a traffic violation. However the way they came after me, they were claiming gross negligence and a gross disregard for the saftey of others. I was also looking at a 10,000 to 20,000 dollar fine, plus loss of my auto insurance, as well as opening me up for many more Civil claims for people who weren't injured. The truck I collided with didn't press charges, and didn't even bill me for the damage. The driver claimed shared responsibility, both our statements agreed on what happened, however there were a couple sunday drivers which claimed things that were extremely far fetched which is why the DA supposedly came after me. The most credible witness other than myself said I did nothing wrong, but people 6 cars back claim to have seen exactly what I did, and what happened. *Note the truck was on coming and had a clear view.* If I was assured I would have a fair jury of people between 30 and 50 that were intelligent, you bet your ass I would have gone to trial. I was still debating going to trial till the day I actually entered the agreement. However, minimizing risk to myself, and my fiance, as well as minimizing prision was a BFD, and as I can expunge this from my record in 2 years, and it does not limit me from any of my rights, you tell me assuradly that no matter what, in my situation you'd take the jury.
You're telling me because I did something to minimize damage, and prevent my fiance from also really getting hosed by this, "Who was a victim according to you people, since the DA is 100% right if I took a plea deal", I'm actually guilty. We were planning on getting married this summer, however we're waiting till all possible statutes of limitations on civil-cases are up. We know there was one car involved that is nothing more than money hungry. There is always more than just black and white, and to say our system is correct 100% of the time is fool hardy and stupid.
Thank you everyone for your posts, espcially those that have been supportive. To those who say that I'm guilty by the fact I didn't go to trial. The day that you end up in my shoes, believe me you're going to see things differently.
-PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Disputes over police videotaping are becoming more common.
The Pennsylvia decision is not federal, unfortunately, but it states some good principles: "The activities of the police, like those of other public officials, are subject to public scrutiny...Videotaping is a legitimate means of gathering information for public dissemination...there can be no doubt that the free speech clause of the Constitution protected Robinson as he videotaped the defendants...Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech....We find that defendants are liable under 1983 for violating Robinson's Fourth Amendment right to be protected from an unlawful seizure..."
While I agree with the +5 Funny mod you got, your post seems to so accurately reflect the thought process actually being used to justify what's happening now that I find it impossible to laugh. Pity there isn't a "+5 Frightening" mod. ;-)
It's being called "The War on Terror", and yet despite having friends who've served in Iraq and one who lost loved ones on 9/11 I'm far more afraid of my own government than I am of any foreign conspirators. What does that say to you?
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
No. If you re-read my post I actually supported your decision.
I stand corrected.
Logic, macros, and more
Yes I know, I was refering to the people way up the ladder. I actually really appreciated your post, and thank you. I should have probably made that clearer, its what I get for writing before I have my caffine intake.
-PB_TPU_40 The trick to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
What the other finds "right" another man can experience this as "wrong". Clinton involved adultery and lying; which is in the christian way "wrong" because you cannot sleep with someone else when married.
Right, which is why the right wing went after the following Republican politicians for having affairs just as hard as they went after Clinton: Gengrich, Guiliani, McCain, and of course Henry Hyde, the man in charge of the drive to impeach Clinton in the House of Representatives.
Except they didn't, which just further exposes them to be a bunch of hypocrites engaging in blatant double standards.
There is no such thing as a Federal Concealed Weapon Permit. CWPs are authorized by states, not the federal government. They are issued by the local police or sheriff. There is no permit that lets a citizen carry a concealed weapon everywhere, but many state permits are honored in other states. And in every case of state-authorized CWPs, where there is a restriction for criminal offenses, a CONVICTION is reqiured, or the person charged must be under actual indictment for a felony. Some states also prohibit any firearm possession, conceiled or otherwise, if you're subject to a personal restraining order or felony indictment.
Charges alone, however, mean nothing in respect to the CWP in any current state law, and there is no overriding federal law.
Did you ever see the TV show "Law and Order"? They deal with murders, robberies, lots of fights, dramatic stuff. Woopie. They don't even break a sweat.
Then in one episode, a cop is killed. The characters go NUTS! People are not questioned quietly, "Where were you on Thursday, ma'am?". No, people are thrown up against walls first, then the questions are not asked they are demanded. Vast efforts are expended. "One Of Our Own" has been harmed and the criminal WILL be found!
This is a normal evolution of society. Did you know that professional police, in the West anyway, were invented in the early 1800's by Sir Robert Peal in England? "Bobbies" they called them, and they went unarmed. They were servants, they were respected in the scope of their jobs and at the same time they could call out for aid with their voices and their whistles and people would come running to help them. And since England had a tradition of being an armed society, people responded armed and ready to help out in any way.
Then with the 20th century, the police went from "peace keeping" to a new role: Law Enforcement. Instead of waiting for someone to commit a crime, now police go looking for bad guys. The "knock in the middle of the night" is not a phenomenon of bad WW2 movies or TV shows about people with bad eastern-European accents. Now it happens in so-called "free" countries.
At the same time, the traditions of the "armed citizen" have come under attack. The more success the prohibition on private ownership of arms, the greater the effect has been: rising crime rates, fear, and a culture of victimhood.
The police are now armed in England, although I've heard that a token "unarmed" policy stays in effect for some number of police until someone calls backup or unlocks the trunk of the cop car. Citizens are no longer asked to come forward with information, they are no longer relied upon for aid, they are told to go home and not get involved.
Police are the armed class. They are the Samurai, whose name means "servant" but who in reality rule because they are armed while everyone else is disarmed. The people live in fear of offending a cop because the cop is always assumed to be in the right when they act against someone.
That is why this videotape was so dangerous. It removed that assumption of innocence from the cop, and it had to be stopped. The police cannot stand to have that assumption challenged, because it will undermine their power: fear.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Boycott? Why not a revolution? Post on internet every single video where cops violate citizens rights???
Let's bring down these fascists elements in the government, VIVA EL CHE!!!
seems all roads arrive at one thing .. "the hidden agenda" of many; to improve their own welfare on the neck of someone else; We used to be working to get bread on the table; these days we seem to (need to) work to get the bread of another from their table; or; as "dear citizen" to protect the bread from being taken.
Some of these people do run over corpses and will do anything to achieve their goal for their own personal wellbeing; which I find pretty dangerous if these people are also handling politics of their country to reach that hidden agenda. I call it a ticking timebomb ready to explode whenever the time is there ; since ; it's a plan based on short term solutions without any valid and (any) truthfull background. Truth is designed to be free; lies are designed to cover Truth ; which will prevail? I can only hope most people at the West (I'm from Europe) will catch the ball faster and come up for their liberty and privacy before it will be REALLY too late for them and others to follow...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Is your friend's name Arcot Ramathorn, by chance?
ALL of the comments above about whether or not cops are assholes, and whether or not they will be nice to you if you're nice to them, should be modded as Off Topic.
This was a shockingly egregious violation of a man's Constitutional rights, and somehow the smartest thing that dozens of slashdotters could muster up to say about it was "be nice to cops and they'll be nice to you", or "cops are assholes"? Seriously, WTF?
Reminds me of when I was in high school and my family was gathered around the TV watching coverage of the Tiananmen Square protests. The coverage showed various scenes of carnage, soldiers with machine guns, and of course, the now-famous man standing in front of a tank. My mom, who'd been quiet the whole time, saw a stack of burning tires and blurted out "Oooh, look! Rubber burning!" as if she'd completely missed the point. My brother and I both looked at each other quizzically and said "HUH?!?!?!"
Let me see if I get this straight...
Let's parallel that with another person we all know so well:
Tell me why again, this one citizen, who is protecting his property (yes, he's been verbally abusive to the cops before, but verbal abuse is not a felony or a crime, in fact, unless you directly threaten the safety of the officers or someone else) is arrested, and this unqualified, election-rigging, law-breaking "individual" is still allowed to run this country into the ground?
The other ironic point to this madness, is that the current rhetoric is that this country is 'safer now than it has ever been'. However, the truth is that this country is now more unstable, partisan, fractured than it has ever been.
There have only been TWO terrorist attacks on domestic soil by foreign terrorists in the last 40 PRESIDENTS.. and get this:
The end is near for the Bush regime, thanks to 5 states now signing onto the Articles of Impeachment to get this dropout out of office. Now if we cou
"To Protect And To Serve"
In my 27 years of life, I'm sure I've had good experiences with the Police.
But it's the humiliating and skewed experiences I will remember most. Some of them that altered my perception of the Police forever for the worst.
http://nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
NASHUA - Police have asked the Hillsborough County attorney's office for a second opinion on wiretapping charges against a Nashua man, and police also will review the man's videotape to investigate his complaint that a detective was rude, Police Chief Timothy Hefferan said Friday.
get help man. If not here on slashdot then get help somewhere. You need to talk it out with someone, find some meds and maybe get the voices to be quiet for a while.
Don't let the tinfoil come off. It gets loose so I suggest duct tape and multiple layers.
...does anyone want to put money on the cops from this department making this family's life a misery from now on?
remember to loot and pillage before you burn!
The problem with police is that they deal with criminals all day and after awhile they forget most people are not criminals. If you are around a certain group of people all of the time and that's all you see, the brain associates that with reality. And the reality for a cop is that everybody is a criminal.
This case is another example of a NH police force gone mad, and as you can read in the comments section to my post, it is not the first time, as I note in this post:
c ast-presents-police-beat-down-in.html
o lice-chiefs-busted-on-immigration.html
c ast-presents-syllabus-of-court.html
d nock-residents-reject-police-spy.html
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/king
Nor is it the first time that NH officials have applied arcane laws to try to screw a little guy.
Fact: They tried to do it with trespassing statutes to nail undocumented workers. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2005/08/nh-p
Fact: They tried to do it with a ridiculous reading of an extortion statute to indict me for writing a Demand Letter from the NAACP regarding an incident of police abuse. That case, in Cheshire County Superior, has shattered and continues to fall apart. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/06/king
Fact: They tried to bring in police spy cameras out in Monadnock; seems its okay for them to monitor us but when we monitor them we get a problem, yo. http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/03/mona
So with respect to my situation, I'm retaliating by video taping everything that happens in the case, using a professional film maker, some of which you can see at KingCast.net.
Peace.