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."

Comments

Ask the President

[neonprimetime]

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?

Not All Powerful

[Mikkeles]

The law cannot protect you from the police.

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[neonprimetime]

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.

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[rsilvergun]

By the way, isn't New Hampshire supposed to be the state all the Libertarians are moving to

That's why the police are taking a hard line. God Damn hippies are movin' in.

Muppets

[Anne_Nonymous]

>> arrested for videotaping police

I can imagine the Muppets' skit now, "Piiiiggggggs onnnnn Taaaaaappppe".

Re:This is absurd on so many levels

[shrubya]

Huh? There's plenty of Libertarian hippies. Not quite as many as gun-nuts or anarcho-capitalists, but they're in there.

get this straight, okay?

[misanthrope101]

Don't you mean, illegally?

Apparently you just don't get it. Liberals rarely do, so don't take it personally. The President of the United States cannot do anything illegal, because the very act of commission on his part legitimizes his decision. Because we are in a state of Presidentially-declared war, everything, and I mean everything, he does is under the aegis of the War on Terror. When the President makes a decision, it is within the umbrella of the authority given to him by the necessities of the War on Terror, and that fact retroactively makes his actions legal, regardless of what the text of the law literally says. It's as if his decision actually reached backwards in the space-time continuum, subtly coloring, perhaps even redefining, the meaning of words like "torture," "surveillance," "warrant," etc.

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.

Re:get this straight, okay?

[jonfelder]

Did you hear that? That was the sound of a joke going right over your head.

Both sound and audio?

[alanthenerd]

The security cameras record sound and audio

Both sound and audio eh? Funny, I kinda thought they were the same thing

Re:Solution: A $5 Sign?

[turgid]

...or, as my mother used to say while she was beating me, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"