Agree.

Why would the innocent flee from the cops?

Keebler;384210 wrote:Why would the innocent flee from the cops?

Because they're scary people chasing them with batons/tazers/guns?

The first instinct that our body tells us to do is run.

Also, it is illegal to film an on duty police officer. Which is beyond bullshit.

Keebler;384210 wrote:Why would the innocent flee from the cops?

They do all the time. If some power-drunk cop with small man's syndrome starts yelling and flashing a tazer, plenty of people run. It's not smart, but they do. Running != guilty.

IWP, is it illegal in Ohio? In some states, it's legal (I think there was a recent case in Philly on this issue).

I Wear Pants;384213 wrote:Also, it is illegal to film an on duty police officer. Which is beyond bullshit.

Beyond bullshit right to old wives tale. Simply not the case in general terms. A person has no expectation of privacy in a public place. There is no law on the books I'm aware of that changes this fact due to said person being a police officer.

queencitybuckeye;384220 wrote:Beyond bullshit right to old wives tale. Simply not the case in general terms. A person has no expectation of privacy in a public place. There is no law on the books I'm aware of that changes this fact due to said person being a police officer.

"The courts, however, disagree. A few weeks ago, an Illinois judge rejected a motion to dismiss an eavesdropping charge against Christopher Drew, who recorded his own arrest for selling one-dollar artwork on the streets of Chicago. Although the misdemeanor charges of not having a peddler's license and peddling in a prohibited area were dropped, Drew is being prosecuted for illegal recording, a Class I felony punishable by 4 to 15 years in prison"

"On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law.

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts."

Twelve states have those laws.

I Wear Pants;384213 wrote:Because they're scary people chasing them with batons/tazers/guns?

The first instinct that our body tells us to do is run.

Also, it is illegal to film an on duty police officer. Which is beyond bullshit.

Not in Ohio, because Ohio is a 1 party consent state. Basically the states that do not allow it are a 2 party consent state and the police have always had a non-consent, hence the rulings.

I Wear Pants;384228 wrote:"Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts."

You didn't list your source, but the last six words are not accurate. Case law goes overwhelmingly the other way.

queencitybuckeye;384235 wrote:You didn't list your source, but the last six words are not accurate. Case law goes overwhelmingly the other way.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

This article states exactly what I did, that hidden recordings violate the 2 party consent laws in certain states.

queencitybuckeye;384235 wrote:You didn't list your source, but the last six words are not accurate. Case law goes overwhelmingly the other way.

http://carlosmiller.com/
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gizmodo/full+%28Gizmodo

I wasn't trying to say it was the law in Ohio. But it's just as disturbing that it happens in other states. The police in this country are nearly unchecked in their power.

I'm sorry but innocent people on bikes don't just run from the cops when they are asked to stop.

Disagree.

Keebler;384268 wrote:I'm sorry but innocent people on bikes don't just run from the cops when they are asked to stop.

innocent or not, running from the cops becomes a crime in itself.

Keebler;384268 wrote:I'm sorry but innocent people on bikes don't just run from the cops when they are asked to stop.

Sometimes they do.

I Wear Pants;384246 wrote:http://carlosmiller.com/
http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gizmodo/full+%28Gizmodo

I wasn't trying to say it was the law in Ohio. But it's just as disturbing that it happens in other states. The police in this country are nearly unchecked in their power.

as pointed out earlier, it has nothing to do with the police. it has to do with the other person consenting. i can film you in public and be arrested when i put it on youtube because i dont have your consent. the only difference is the police have made it public they do not give consent.

Glory Days;384384 wrote:as pointed out earlier, it has nothing to do with the police. it has to do with the other person consenting. i can film you in public and be arrested when i put it on youtube because i dont have your consent. the only difference is the police have made it public they do not give consent.

From what I read it has more to do with hidden video taping. That's how news crews get away with it because they are OBVIOUSLY out video taping.

It should never be a crime to film an on duty police officer.

And the only time they actually prosecute for the "crime" of filming an officer is when it embarrasses the officer or department.

You'll never see them press charges against someone who made a video of them looking good even if it was without permission.

Well, the father of the kid has come out and said he thinks the police should apologize. I think the kid should apologize for being a thief and running from the police.

We had a guy run from us last year during FALCON (project with US Marshals to serve a bunch of warrants) and he ended up getting tazed. We were all clearly marked and identified ourselves. The guy had no warrants, and knew he didn't because he had just been released from jail the night before. He got the barbs straight into the skin because he wasn't wearing a shirt, and picked up new charges to boot. Idiot.

I Wear Pants;384418 wrote:It should never be a crime to film an on duty police officer.

And the only time they actually prosecute for the "crime" of filming an officer is when it embarrasses the officer or department.

You'll never see them press charges against someone who made a video of them looking good even if it was without permission.

why? you want police and civilians to be at the same level, why not now? plus this stops people from video taping police who do it on purpose to make money etc. they'll do something like push a police officer or something, but only film the aftermath and post it on youtube. of course the public only sees what the offcer did back to the person.

Yep. Now it's time for the father's true colors to shine. Rather than beat the kids ass, the police should apologize.

Glory Days;384442 wrote:why? you want police and civilians to be at the same level, why not now? plus this stops people from video taping police who do it on purpose to make money etc. they'll do something like push a police officer or something, but only film the aftermath and post it on youtube. of course the public only sees what the offcer did back to the person.

This is why I like states like Ohio that have a 1 party consent system. Police and Citizens ARE on the same level.

Glory Days;384442 wrote:why? you want police and civilians to be at the same level, why not now? plus this stops people from video taping police who do it on purpose to make money etc. they'll do something like push a police officer or something, but only film the aftermath and post it on youtube. of course the public only sees what the offcer did back to the person.

If I film some civilian (which is a made up word in the case of police, they are civilians too) beating up someone or breaking the law I am not going to get charged with a crime.

Police are civilians. They are not above us plain citizens in any way.

sej;384436 wrote:We had a guy run from us last year during FALCON (project with US Marshals to serve a bunch of warrants) and he ended up getting tazed. We were all clearly marked and identified ourselves. The guy had no warrants, and knew he didn't because he had just been released from jail the night before. He got the barbs straight into the skin because he wasn't wearing a shirt, and picked up new charges to boot. Idiot.

I'd run from you too if I saw you coming at me. The thought of you with a tazer or gun scares the shit out of me.

I Wear Pants;384452 wrote:If I film some civilian (which is a made up word in the case of police, they are civilians too) beating up someone or breaking the law I am not going to get charged with a crime.

Police are civilians. They are not above us plain citizens in any way.

no, police are bound by the constitution, citizens are not. and as pointed out earlier, it depends on what state you film those people in.