Slashdot Mirror
Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police
krou sends this snip from the Maine Civil Liberties Union: "The ACLU of Maryland is defending Anthony Graber, who faces as much as sixteen years in prison if found guilty of violating state wiretap laws because he recorded video of an officer drawing a gun during a traffic stop. ... Once [the Maryland State Police] learned of the video on YouTube, Graber's parents' house was raided, searched, and four of his computers were confiscated. Graber was arrested, booked, and jailed. Their actions are a calculated method of intimidation. Another person has since been similarly charged under the same statute. The wiretap law being used to charge Anthony Graber is intended to protect private communication between two parties. According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber's case, 'To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'" Here are a factsheet (PDF) on the case from the ACLU of Maryland, and the video at issue.
... you've nothing to be afraid of. So, I wonder what it is they're afraid of?
Its unfortunate that he will most likely win (atleast, we all hope) and will probably end up getting some money out of the state for his trouble. But the thing is, the people that made those decisions won't be punished, its the tax payers that will be punished because now the defecit due to the lawsuit has to be made up for.
If Maryland only required one party involved in a conversation to be aware for a recording to be legal, this bullshit charge would never fly. Such is the case in Canada, and the majority of US states.
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
When is anyone anywhere going to learn about the Streissand Effect? This would only even be slightly more idiotic or ironic if in they video, they're pulling over Barbara Streissand herself. Now millions of people and probably CNN if it's a slow news day will pick up this story and know what a bunch of assholes these morons are and there will be resignations and law suits and blah blah blah just because of a few arrogant jackasses trying to use scare tactics. Well, at least the good news is they're all going to get what they deserve.
Btw, since they're probably not above suing over comments about this story also, SUBPEONA THIS! *flips off the screen*
Lol, just try and take me to court to make me prove you're all jackasses as stated (and make it a jury trial.)
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
We're all one traffic stop away from total financial ruin and potentially jail. If it's not for something illegal today, it'll be for something illegal tomorrow, or simply something the police think might be possibly illegal.
Whether he's found guilty or not, his life is basically over.
If he's lucky, the ordeal will cost him thousands (maybe tens of thousands) when it's all said and done, and he wont get any of his stuff back. He'll have an impossible time getting a job, a loan, a security clearance, etc. with an arrest in his background. Many (most?) employers now ask if you've merely been arrested, regardless of whether you were charged or found guilty, so he'll be making minimum wage at best.
If he's unlucky, he'll have a bunch of jack-booted "law and order" Americans on his jury who side with the police by default and just want to see more people put in jail.
I can't speak for MD in particular (although I do live here) but beyond the pernicious "the public can't watch us do the public's work" aspect of this is those dashboard cameras we all love on America's Funniest Car Chases and whatever. I've certainly seen clips that include audio from the citizen as well as the police officer--are we to take it that these too are felonious wiretaps?
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
You could kill someone and get less than that... (as long as the person you kill isn't a cop)
First step would be to learn about the laws involved. This is not a US wide law, this is state by state and the majority of states are not like this. If your state is affected, then set about trying to change it. You might discover that your state representatives don't even know. This shit was drafted up a long time ago in most cases. You make them aware they are a two party state and the consequences, maybe they work to fix it. If not, you continue the quest along other avenues.
However bitching about the USA being a "Police State" on a message board does no good.
And before you shoot back at me, I live in a one party state, so this particular issue is not one I concern myself with. My legislature has already made the correct choice, and we can record if we like.
I love how video+audio = "wiretapping", which is by definition, tapping into the wires of a phone or communications system to record the conversation. So have the politicians been jailed for taking video of their child at school and happened to video someone else? Have people been arrested for using a digital recorder at the local college lectures? What about the new crew?
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Fuck yeah I am glad I don't live there. Would you like to import some of our (backward) European freedoms?
Re "private communication between two parties" :)
Funny how when a multinational Internet search and advertising corporation gets caught doing a wifi traffic stop, its a mistake.
No servers confiscated
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I actually read an article about issues like this, and it seems different states have different wording in their wiretapping statutes. In some states, the audio part of the recording is what's illegal (many cellphones and pocket cameras record audio when they record video with no way to turn the microphone off). In other states, there's an exemption if it's obvious to all parties that what's happening is being recorded (local Channel 5 reporters with 50-pound cameras talking into a huge mic.) or if it's taking place in a public area (no privacy in public, remember?) but it seems judges are ignoring the public area exemption in cases like these.
If you have such a video, submit it to your local news station with a note requesting anonymity, or use a Youtube account created and accessed via TOR. If the police confiscate your camera/phone, you can sue and successfully get it back.
One thing I do wonder: how is it not a violation for cops to have dashboard-mounted cameras that record audio and video constantly, yet a brief cellphone video of a pulled-over cop is a violation.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
What Graber filmed was called a Terry Stop and the cop is able to search you without a warrant within your "wingspan" to check for weapons that may threaten him or other people. There are a lot of laws that cops often break on Terry Stops. My car was searched on my own property under the guise of a Terry Stop, which of course is wildly illegal, but I digress.
What Graber is "facing" is a maximum..he will never serve it unless he decides to roll the dice with a jury, blows trial and the judge sentences him to the maximum. Since the ACLU is involved, you can bet that will never happen.
But States and more often, the Feds will indict you for offenses that carry insane sentences in order to convince you to plead out, as the vast majority of people do. I did. I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. If I went to trial and lost on one single count, I would have done fifteen years, mandatory. (No parole in feds, BTW...you do 87.5%) I signed for five years, did 52 months.
Now, would you have fought? Really? Many people say they would, but it's a lot different when you are considering giving your life to 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. When you realize that the whole system is set up to plead out 95+% of cases and do anything possible to convince you to not go in front of a jury, the average person has almost no chance in the system as it is set up. You didn't do it? That doesn't matter. It's what you can PROVE to a jury. And most of the time, the Government has much better lawyers and resources, so Graban is actually lucky...he won't serve a day, IMVHO.
CSI, Law and Order are worse than misinformation..they are propaganda, brainwashing us into thinking the system is fair and equal. It isn't. Graber is lucky that his case has publicity value. He may be "facing" sixteen years, but he'll never serve any.
But we aren't all lucky. We are indeed one Terry stop away from ruin. Be careful.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
While we can get all indignant about how asinine this is and how the laws are stupid. What can we do if he does lose this case and goes to prison. What is our recourse? There isn't one. While I'd love to be able to look back and say this was some landmark case that caused some sort of sane reform, I just dont see that happening, and I just don't see Maryland replacing the politicians that are allowing this farce to continue.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Definately, not you.
Support House Concurrent Resolution 298, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts." US citizens, click here to write your congressional representative.
Just imagine if LAPD pulled that on the person who filmed the Rodney King incident.
-Fiend-
Nope - whistleblower laws protect employees from their employers' retaliatory actions. As there was no employment relationship the whistleblower laws are inapplicable.
Out of interest, were you guilty of any crime?
But regardless - the way plea bargaining works in the US is a travesty of justice. The whole system is weighted to encourage it as well. It requires much less work and no aditional staff costs (e.g. researches) for a DA to negotiate a plea bargain.
While I would defend 100% his right to post this video, there is one thing I wouldn't have done (well, two things really) if it were me:
1. Put the 120+MPH bit on YouTube. That's just asking to attract more unwanted police attention. I'd have just posted the last bit (where he admits to 69 and 80 mph, probably what he got the ticket for) and not put the bit where he overtakes the bus.
2. Do 120+ on a busy highway in the first place.
There's a time and place to go hooning, and it's called a very quiet road where no other traffic is, and where you're reasonably sure there are not cops lurking. And if you do get caught and get a ticket for 80 mph, for heaven's sake don't then admit to 120 in a YouTube video!
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I have an honest question for you: Why the fuck do you still live in that country?
Honestly, a place where cops are practically untouchable, the justice system amounts to "plea guilty and do a few years, or else...." and guilt is determined by your average group of mouthbreathers with an extremely mis-placed sense of justice on a power-trip. Why the hell would anyone want to live there?
People, what a bunch of bastards
Oh, bullshit. I'm sure it's exhilarating to push the +1 Insightful moderation, but I live in an actual police state. If I went to city hall with a group of people waving signs, we'd have the People's Armed Police up in our grill faster than you can say "Jiminy Cricket". I just cringe when Americans make idiot statements like yours.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
First thing you learn in a lawsuit (not criminal in my case, but same idea applies), is that the truth doesn't matter. Once you are in a lawsuit you are now playing a game and you have to do whatever it takes to win the game, whether that means maintaining your innocence when you are guilty or admitting guilt when you are innocent.
Obviously that community needs someone to protect them from the police. Crack whores?
Really? If you were completely innocent, but had been indicted on Federal charges that would most likely put you away for life if you blew trial, or you were offered a two year plea deal, you'd actually gamble your life on twelve people who hear a very colorized version of the truth?
The cold facts:
93.6% of Fed cases result in a guilty plea.
75.6% of Fed criminal defendants are convicted following trial.
97% of Fed criminal defendants are sentenced.
82.8% of Fed criminal defendants receive a prison term.
That's not guilty defendants: it's ALL defendants.
Many of the people I met in Fed prison had either done nothing, or something so minor as to certainly not merit hard time. (I was a bit of a jailhouse lawyer..not much else to do.) I saw guys serving 20 years for making a phone call. I am not kidding.
As I said, it doesn't matter at ALL whether you did it or not. It matters what you can prove. And trust me, it's YOU that needs to do the proving, innocent till proven guilty is BS.
So, maybe you didn't do it, but you almost certainly will lose at trial. Yes, you''l be "right" and will have the moral high ground,..and wear khakis the rest of your life.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
Why your contempt for juries? It's the last line of civil defense against unjust laws.
This is the gazillionth story I've heard of Maryland cops wantonly abusing their power.
The most blatant one I've heard happened to a coworker of mine from Bethesda in about '98. His car had been stolen and was reported to the police about a month prior to the incident. The police had actually recovered his vehicle and he had picked it up at the city impound lot earlier in the week.
On a Friday night, he was pulled over while riding with a friend. The cops ran to his car with guns drawn, pulled the doors open, dragged them out of the car, forced them to the ground, and kicked the crap out of them. All the while they were both of course shouting that this was their car and trying to show ID etc.
After they were both beaten into submission, the cops did eventually look at the car papers and ID, and then verified with their dispatcher that the car had been recovered that week, after which they simply drove away. I believe there were exchanges of something along the lines of "you have no proof of anything".
Now, my friend should have gotten a lawyer, but where he messed up was that he & his dad went to the police station to complain, which got them basically nowhere. Actually this was also about the time he left our mutual employer and we haven't really discussed it since, so I'm not sure how it turned out in the end.
its aruldy been ruled videotaping a cop is not illagle. its just the police trying to get back at the guy for catching there buddy acting like a shitbag. been a few of these cases latly and every time the cops lose. as for the whole the guy will never find a job again i dought it. its only a traffic charge and a made up wiretapping charge that won hold up in court. its not its robbery assult or anything like that and employers ignore traffic charges unless you apply for a driving job. as for not getting his stuff back when he wins his court case they have to return everything if they dont he can sue them for it.
AFAIU it's not the motor cyclist who's facing 16 years. Or are you going to argue that videotaping is an act of wildly and dangerously breaking traffic law?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Really? Anything that involves interstate commerce can immediately be classified as federal. And it's easy to classify anything has having an effect on commerce.
I did not say "I didn't do anything." I said "I was facing five life sentences plus 105 years for an offense no one had ever been jailed a day on before. " And that is absolutely true. In fact, I filed my own 2255 collateral attack and the judge issued a sua sponte ruling (in violation of Greenlaw) using Gonzalez v Raich, a 9th Circuit medical marijuana case, which states that the Government can regulate noncommercial INTRAstate activity in which it has an interest. (See Wickard v Fillmore.) No "special circumstance.." the Feds just need to have an interest in you.
As for only "robbery with a gun" being an example of a life sentence requirement, that's bollocks. Feds operate on a very strict numerical system, (even though Booker says it's all advisory.) See this table? All you need to do is get up to Offense Level 37 with a few priors and you're gone forever. Or get a few 924(c) counts, the third of which puts you away for life, mandatory. There are white collar guys who are doing life because their dollar amounts are high. Bernie Madoff didn't use a gun, did he? How about Jeff Skilling? A guy who sells small amounts of drugs three times does 20 years, mandatory because of 18 USC 851.
You can do life for conspiracy. If I call you and ask "hey want a pound of blow?" and you simply say yes, you can be indicted on a pound of blow..at least 15 years. No blow needs to exist. Happens every day.
Just cause you have a pal who happens to work for a PD doesn't mean you understand just how unjust the system is. Actually, at the spot I served, I never saw a single inmate who claimed to be innocent.
I'm just suggesting people be very careful.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
An unmarked police car pulls a guy over and the cop jumps out with a gun... at what point was the motor cyclist supposed to turn off the camera - after the fact he didn't know it was a police car? We don't know the history of the person being pulled over, for all we know he was a person of interest to the cops (his name popped up on the computer after the cop checked the registration of the bike then the cop proceeded with caution by pulling out a gun - maybe the motorcyclist had prior "dangerous" convictions?). Regardless, they might have had nothing on him and are using the "make an example out of him" method making his life hell. How many riots, uproars have happened when someone has video taped a cop? Authorities want to get the message across of don't do it or else this will happen to you... Anyway, if the filming part was so bad why didn't they confiscate the camera? How did the video end up on the internet?
Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
Well I think everyone would have seen this coming, for years the Police all over have used CCTV and any kind of camera images still or video to look for people and even ask the publics help in finding individuals, they use it in bait cars and in surveillance and of course they love it and use it in the courts regularly. I find it hypocritical that they want to use the technology as long as it isn't being iused against them. How many case have been caught on tape by their own Police dash cams ( If you remeber the 4 police officers that were hatching how to frame an accident one of their officers caused against the driver of the car the officer hit ) as an example, and how many other instances were the Police were saying to the public in a press release put out by their OWN infomation office of how an incident went down and then a tape pops up showing different. In the eyes of the court an officers word carries a lot of weight over an individuals word. This smacks of intimadtion, There are a lot of instances were the Police and Prosecuters take a law and twist and turn it to use as an an advatgae and not within the bounds it was mean for... and I think this case is a prime example of that. If you have honest Police officers doing nothing wrong, well then the tape will show that, so why would they be concerned. I think even though this could be the case here I think the Police are doing what The Chinese goverment does to its people " We will tell you what the truth is, Not what you see or hear " . If something had happened during this traffic stop to the officer , do you think the Police would be going after this guy for taping it? I doubt it, my guess is they would be seeking the tape to help prove and prosecute the case against the individual. This comes across to me as they dont want anything out there that could be used against them. I think this is beyond a blatant abuse of the law.
Routinely, eh? Then surely you can provide a citation delving into what percentage of protests end in police intervention more than a simple arrest of a person or persons acting in a clearly illegal manner? How many times tear gas has been fired at protesters in, say, the last decade? How many times rubber bullets were fired?
There's an awful lot of paperwork involved with such things, so surely you must have this information since you're comfortable characterizing its frequency.
Or you're making something that happens rarely sound, ahem, "routine" in order to bolster a silly claim?
Eagerly waiting to find out which. So suspenseful!
That's the reason why I will never ever go to the US.
http://www.dumblaws.com/
I might do something accidently wrong and face prison. No, thank you.
Bullshit. Complete and utterly uninformed bullshit.
1. UK is part of the EU.
2. Nowhere is it a requirement to be a citizen, nor a spouse of a citizen. There are rules for minimum wages you must earn in order to have permission to stay in some countries, but thats it.
3. The 60%+ taxes are very very localized (specifically Denmark), and they only apply to the very highest paid citizens (you are taxed based on your income) - you should keep in mind that higher taxes equals higher wages.
But having a mindset like yours you should stay where you are.
I've looked into it, not that the 60+% taxes really make it appealing.......but when you're unemployed, you look at all options.
60% taxes, where? I would say, that the most taxing countries (France for instance), get at most 50%. But look at it in another way, yes, you pay 50% taxes, but that comes with UNIVERSAL health care, real rights to the ones that get unemployed, children support, practically FREE education all the way until the end of college (ok, in some countries you have to pay like €1000 per year when you are in the University, but in some other, they actually pay you to go to University, although it's just something like €300 per month).
And beside, what really kills me, is how you Americans just care about the money. Man, quality of life is much more than the money. It's support when you need it. It's knowing that you are protected in case something goes wrong and it's not entirely your fault, it's good climate (well, this only applies to Souther Europe), it's culture for free, it's really good food (once again ... only in southern Europe :D), it's living in a city where you don't have to drive every morning to work cause the public mass transport system is really effective or because the centre of the city is also occupied by it's citizens ... well, it's a very big bunch of many other things.
I might not be rich ... but then again, I have everything I need to be happy, so what's the problem?
Precisely. I won't deny that it does happen, but there's nothing routine about it in the least, and it's rarely at protests that are peaceful in actuality. It maybe makes the news once or twice a year, if even that, and it's newsworthy because it's so far outside the norm. Meanwhile, there are thousands upon thousands of peaceful protests every year that do not have these sorts of things happening at them. I've been to protests. I know folks who've been to more protests. I even know some folks that were jailed for misbehaving at protests. But I don't have firsthand knowledge of a single protest that involved tear gas, clubbing, tazing, or rubber bullets.
Wait. What? Why is this a troll. Someone help me out here.
The law AFAIK is quite clear: Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you? YES, you are within your rights to SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE.
IANAL, but am I wrong here???
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
YUIW:
Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle on Interstate 95, and was
confronted by a plainclothes Maryland State Police trooper as he came to a stop at an
exit. Graber had a video camera prominently mounted on his helmet to record his ride,
and the camera recorded the officer's actions and statements at the outset of the
encounter
However it shouldn't make any difference. Just because someone is guilty of X doesn't make him guilty of Y - each case should be decided on its own merits. This is why many jurisdictions don't reveal a defendants previous offenses to the jury.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I've been following this case closely since it started since I live in MD.
The key issue here is MD's law on recording audio without all parties' consent. The state is arguing that all parties of the private conversation (i.e. the trooper) did not consent, hence the violation.
A key provision of the law is the idea of "reasonable expectation of privacy". This is what allows news crews to record street scenes audio/video without everyone's consent. In a public area, no one reasonably has an expectation privacy. The defense will argue this point and Graber will be found innocent.
Next step is to work on getting this law overturned. MD is one of a handful of states with the unanimous consent provision where most other states are so-called "one consent".
Because I personally think speeders should be locked up for life, I do not give a shit if this person goes to jail.
Fine, but if he goes to jail it should be for reckless driving, not for some trumped up charge that could set a nasty legal precedent that has serious ramifications for everyone.
Blank until
Why your contempt for juries? It's the last line of civil defense against unjust laws
Because it turns out that they don't actually do that job. Judges regularly lie to juries that it isn't their job to stop unjust laws, and ill-educated juries swallow it whole.
FGD 135
They're really very similar. In the US, you can go up to President Obama and say "I hate President Obama" without legal retaliation. In China, you can go up to Hu Jintao and say "I hate President Obama" without legal retaliation.
I am officially gone from
My largest concern is an out-of-uniform cop in an unmarked car (or not a cop car at all) drew his gun and only said "i'm a cop" - you draw a weapon without your uniform etc, and "i'm a cop" doesn't cut it. You have a badge for a reason. You have a uniform for a reason.
If you have a reason to NOT be in your uniform, you should not be acting in such a way. It wouldn't be so very hard to assume he was a road-rager coming to ventilate him. That's likely what I would have thought, and had I been armed, I would have been in serious trouble, because the dipshit wasn't wearing his uniform.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
First, it's true - I looked into it just about 6 months ago, since I've always wanted to travel to the UK (I've been to most of the EU). Second, the 60+% was talking about ALL taxes, not just income tax. You forget the massive taxes on gas, VAT, and the tax on pretty much else imaginable that's all added on top of the typical 40-ish% income tax.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of bashing someone.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Sounds like you are rich, it's just that 20-30% of your money doesn't appear on your budget since you're enjoying it through all these public services.
No, that's the part most of the Americans constantly fail to understand. I'm not rich in here, and I wouldn't still be rich if I hadn't to pay those extra 20%-30% more to get these benefits. In fact I doubt that 30% over the wage I get (around €1000 per month) would actually allowed my to buy all that stuff. More, I'm completely certain that it would not allow the people that earn the minimum wage (which in here is around €500 and that's very little even with these benefits), would allow them to have this.
But his is the great part about it. The 20%-30% that a very rich people also has to pay, it's enough to give the benefits to that rich one, and there is plenty of money left to get those same benefits to a bunch the ones that earn much less than them.
A small example. The tax over fuel in here it's huge. It's really one of the highest in EU, but on the other side, public transportation works well and it's quite cheap (€18 per month to travel as many time as you want in the metro, or €25 to travel all you want in metro and BUS). And I'm happy, it's this way. The city works much better than if everyone takes their cars around, it's less polluted, and it's better for the environment.
It's not Socialism, it's Social Democracy and when done really correctly it works beautifully, like you have to admit it works in Northern Europe ... not so good in the South, but it's still ok in here. And well, although, Northern Europe is better in this social aspect and has all those nice blondes, but bah, it's too cold for me and the food kind of stinks ... and all that contributes to your quality of life :)
Well I happen to live in Denmark, so no offense, but I know a bit more about life in EU than you. And last round of hirings we did we looked at some foreigners (Chinese, not US), green cards where no problem as long as they made 300.000 DKR (about $50.000) a year.
Also, traveling to EU is a lot different from wanting to live and work, so not sure how that applies. The taxes here are 40%, thats it, if you chose to spend your money on gasoline, then yes there are sales taxes and environment taxes, which is why it's frigging expensive to own a car here. If you decided to take public transport here in Denmark (we have 190% sales tax on cars), it's tax deductible, so are loans, unions, pensions etc.
I earn enough to pay some of my wage at the 60% level, but with all the deductions I get I still only pay 40% (38% is lowest in my region) - and I don't own a car, so as I said, your statements are complete and utterly bullshit. But hey, lets not have facts come in the way of a good bashing...
While the ACLU document does mention that this police officer unholstered his weapon before identifying himself as a police officer, this is not the crux of their complaint. If I am stepping out in front of an unknown individual (his face obscured) on a heavy motorcycle, I too am going to want some form of quick defense. I am no expert on the rules of escalation of force for MD state troopers, but at worst the unholstering of the weapon is a training issue that needs to be corrected with this individual.
The ACLU is, instead, focusing on the use of the recording laws in Maryland as a form of suppressing speech; in my opinion, a much more important issue.
Most posters here just want to run a jack-boot-thug, social-feedback-loop rant. They are completely missing the point of both the ACLU and the slashdot submission.
They must do things different where that boy's from. One of the things that was drilled into my head in Journalism school was that you can take pictures of anything you can see from a public street. The Maryland law is unconstitutional, and citizens of Maryland have the right and responsibility to violate that unconstitutional law. But you know, that's not the thing that bothers me the most. The thing that bothers me the most is the 'Traffic Stop'. Here in Florida and in many other states, we have a right to carry concealed weapons with a permit. The man in the video did not identify himself as an officer. There was no reason to think he was anything other than some freak with a case of road rage. I could easily see someone drawing their weapon on that officer and killing him. Someone needs to review basic traffic stop techniques up there.
most of the low speed limits are about makeing cash and not safety just like the red light cameras.
But you can't go up to Dick Cheney and say "Fuck you, Mr. Cheney"
and if this is what happens routinely why did you have to reach back 40 years? Nobody is arguing that this kind of thing never happens, the point is that it's rare. By going to the Kent State shootings, you're supporting Dhalka's assertion, since otherwise you'd have a list of similar incidents from the past year or so.....
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I have indeed done my research on this since I have had to consider hiring foreigners.
And as I wrote in reply to your sibling, you are by no means required to spend all your money, you can save it up, earn interest, invest them - at no point do you have to pay anything more.
And please, please, please don't tell someone they are incompetent when you can't even work out what 17.5% VAT is in terms of total taxes. By the way (for both you and sibling) in the UK you don't pay VAT on everything, unless you only buy goods.
Let me give you a nice example from Denmark where we in fact pay VAT "on every goddamn thing" at 25% - Lets say I earn 100.000 kr, I pay 40% taxes, that leaves me with 60.000 kr.
At 25% VAT, it means 20% of everything I buy is tax, so lets say I spend all 60.000, that means 15.000 of that is an additional tax, which is 15% of the original, that means I pay 55% taxes total.
I'm very much aware of how much I pay in taxes, and I do my share of gibbering about it every month when I get my paycheck, but then I remember, this pays for my medical bills, for the roads, my education, for safety on the streets (milage may vary here, I'll give you that) etc .
The Maryland State Police is a branch of their State Government. Like all police, they take an oath of office that requires them to uphold and serve the citizens and their State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. How can a "servant of the citizens of Maryland" have an expectation of privacy in the course of his normal duties. Especially when he, in the course of his duties, videotapes every traffic stop that he makes and also files a report on every stop and arrest and ticket that he makes? Any expectation of privacy is a joke.
Not only should this case be thrown out of court on its rear, the District or State Attorney that filed this case should, at a minimum, lose his job for bringing such a ridiculous case forward to the court. At a maximum that attorney himself should be arrested and charged for attempting to defraud the State of Maryland and under a charge of _______ (fill in your blank: racketeering, blackmail, intimidation, breaking his own oath of office to serve Maryland's Constitution) for attempting to intimidate, coerce, or falsely imprison a Citizen of the State.
FTA
According to David Rocah, the ACLU attorney handling Mr. Graber's case, 'To charge Graber with violating the law, you would have to conclude that a police officer on a public road, wearing a badge and a uniform, performing his official duty, pulling someone over, somehow has a right to privacy when it comes to the conversation he has with the motorist.'" (emphasis mine)
If this David Rocah had even bothered to view the video in question, he'd know the officer was not wearing a uniform.
Actually, posting the video *with* the speeds made it - IMHO - less biased.
Sure, he looks like a jackass for speeding, but at least he didn't try and act as if he wasn't pulled over for no reason. In addition to cases like this, there's plenty of edited footage out there too that shows the cops knocking a guy down, but neglects the 30 seconds prior when he was pounding at them or attacking somebody else, etc...
The police in Spokane, WA will file a lawsuit against any citizen who either files a lawsuit against them, or files a complaint against them, for defamation of characters. (Google this, it's true.)
It's how police keep people from questioning what they do..
(Wonder if they'll sue ME for even posting this...)
-Myke
This is not an isolated case. In Chicago, an artist/activist is facing felony charges for videoing his arrest for selling small sew-on patches for $1.00 without a peddler's license. They dropped the charges about the peddler license, but the felony case is in court. See http://www.c-drew.com/blog/ for his on-going saga. It is a case of dominated discourse when police and authorities can tape people, but people can't tape back.
This is much more dangerous that most people realize because this is a trend in law enforcement. I am an artist in Chicago threatened with the very same offense. I was arrested while testing the misdemeanor peddlers license requirement in Chicago for selling art for $1 on State Street in the downtown area. Because I audio-recorded my own arrest in order to collect evidence of what happened during my arrest I was charged with a 1st class felony for violating the arresting officers privacy rights. As noted in this discussion, police officers on duty in public arresting people are not acting privately and the State does not accord them privacy rights while on duty. Yet, three States are testing new wiretapping laws, Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois, with the idea being that if they are able to take our 1st Amendment right to watch our public officials (mainly police) away from us they can neutralize the threat of citizens using cell phone technology to gather information to protect themselves from a budding police state. We must establish our right to use our technology to protect ourselves. That is what is at stake. This is a fault line, one side is a police state and the other is democracy. you can read more about my case by googling "Chris Drew eavesdropping" or visit my website at http://www.c-drew.com/blog where I explain lots of interesting First Amendment issues. Sincerely, Chris Drew
Here's a useful phone app someone into phone apps should write. When you push one emergency button, the phone starts taking video and audio and uploading it in real time to a server, which then immediately sends the video someplace where it can't be deleted. (Sending it to YouTube, Wikileaks, the ACLU, and CopWatch might be overkill, but it would work.)
I remember that well. A large number, probably a majority, of Slashdotters won't remember it for the very simple reason that they hadn't been born yet. (That is a clue to its relevance.)
At the time, it was clearly recognized as a situation gone very wrong, with attitudes in general regarding it as something between a horrible screw-up and an atrocity (with the usual caveats for those who think people deserve to be shot because they apparently chose to be in the bullet's trajectory). There was a great deal of discussion over what went wrong and how to make it not happen again.
So, do you have any reference to such a thing happening after, say, Altair released their first home computer?
If you want to convince me that something is routine, find an example that isn't forty years old, and wasn't decried at the time.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A lightweight motorcycle these days is over 500 pounds. No matter what kind of cage you're in, I don't think you'd feel too comfortable with a 500 pound mass being launched at 127 mph in the direction of your cage.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You do realize that rural highway speed limits are maxed out at 55mph-65mph (and often decreased on DOWNHILL sections) solely to raise revenue, right?
When you show me officers enforcing speed limits in school zones, residential side streets, and enforcing right of way in roundabouts/rotaries, and enforcing proper turns and lane changes (i.e., turn indicators/signals/blinkers) I might agree with you. But until actual safety regulations are enforced, I have to call bullshit on your entire post.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50