Photographing Police: Deletion Is Not Forever

Geoffrey.landis writes "The courts have now ruled that the public has the right to videotape the police in the performance of their duties. Of course, that doesn't stop the police from harassing people who do so — even journalists, who sometimes have their cameras confiscated. As it turns out, though, they're not always very knowledgeable about how deletion works. I would say that erasing, or attempting to erase, a video of police arresting somebody illegally (How can a journalist be charged with 'resisting arrest' when he was not being arrested for anything other than resisting arrest?) is a clear case of destruction of evidence by the officers. Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice. That's illegal. Why haven't these police officers been arrested?"

Comments

Re:Privelege

[Rasperin]

Thank goodness I don't say random things without proof or evidence! Eh comrade?

Re: Judges ruling

[Archangel Michael]

Homosexual Marriage has NEVER existed in history until very recently. Marriage was for the purposes of a man an woman(women/polygamy) having a family and defining the rights and responsibilities thereof. Homosexuals are incapable of producing children therefore aren't given the protection of Marriage.

This has recently changed when Homosexuals were allowed to adopt children and other artificial means of producing children (legal or medical). In terms that you can understand, it is a MODERN Construct given legitimacy by LEGAL rulings, and has no basis in history. Judges have decided the cases and created a situation that has NEVER existed prior to recent history. They have created the situation where Homosexuals are demanding a right that doesn't exist naturally, only via artificial constructs.

What is interesting is that when discussing Homosexual Marriages and the legal constructs surrounding the arguments, if one were to bring up Polygamy (or Polyandry) which does have Historical records, almost invariably those in favor of Homosexual Marriages are simultaneously opposed to Polygamy and often use the same arguments against Polygamy that Opponents of Homosexual Marriage use against Homosexual Marriage.

It is this reason and this reason alone, I'm opposed to Government defining what a marriage is, or isn't. The state has no legal or moral imperative to define marriage, except in regards to preferential treatment of certain groups of people; a violation of equal protection under the law. This applies especially to tax laws.Therefore the role of marriage should be handed back to the religious communities that define marriage in ways that are acceptable to them, and government should NOT have any say whatsoever.