Put away that video camera, it could be a felony!

[tm1100s]

Seems to me the only reason not to be taped is the possibility of getting caught doing something wrong.

Our public servants, myself being one for over 28 years, do their job in public, in front of the public eye where anyone can watch and listen. Personally, I don't see this bs holding up for too long.

[Rick Lee]

There was a case about 3-4 yrs. ago where a kid had his car all wired up with cameras that recorded to a remote location, and he got into it with a cop, who sounded drunk on the video. Cop was just out of control. He lost his job and then his chief lost his job. Then some cops on one of the cop chat boards talked about finding this kid and killing him. Happened in MO. I don't think I'd bother wiring up my bike, but might be a fun project for the 993.

[throttlemeister]

Originally Posted by klennop

The officers were in the defensive before we even got off out bikes, it wasn't the camera's. If the officers thought they were doing something wrong, why would they threaten to fine us with obstructing justice. That makes no sense at all. It shouldn't be against the law to document your arrest whether it be you taking a picture or someone else. Did the guy who filmed the Rodney King controversy get thrown in jail or fined?

Also if a lady is dressed nice and she knows she is hot, why wouldn't she want her picture taken. Why would you ask her boyfriend, when it isn't his body?

I never said you'd have to ask the b/f, but you don't think he'd si by idle if she is getting upset by a camera in her face don't you?

And you really think the cops let the filming go on, had they known there was a camera?

Point was, there is a diffence between have a right to do something, and picking the right time to do something. The grabbing a camera example given was clearly not the right time do so in the given situation, nor was it handled in a way that had any chance of success.

As far as the video of the original story, photographers rights are clearly defined in law so it would/should never hold up in court. If it does, anyone using the phrase "land of the free" should be looking for a new tag line. It does help if you know what your rights are.

[klennop]

Originally Posted by throttlemeister

I never said you'd have to ask the b/f, but you don't think he'd si by idle if she is getting upset by a camera in her face don't you?

And you really think the cops let the filming go on, had they known there was a camera?

Point was, there is a diffence between have a right to do something, and picking the right time to do something. The grabbing a camera example given was clearly not the right time do so in the given situation, nor was it handled in a way that had any chance of success.

As far as the video of the original story, photographers rights are clearly defined in law so it would/should never hold up in court. If it does, anyone using the phrase "land of the free" should be looking for a new tag line. It does help if you know what your rights are.

Also just for the record, another one of the riders I was with also pulled out his camera, but the 5 of us must have been in the wrong. Next time I will wait for the cop to tell me it is the "right time" to take a picture. I was successful in taking pictures. In the end, I am not going to argue with someone who clearly thinks they know better even through they were not in the situation.

[throttlemeister]

*yawn*

[Sofatester]

Well, so far with the land of the free, home of the brave.......

Now that we know about the police-hurrican kathrina-New Orleans-killer-cops-issue we all can conclude why we shouldn't take videos of cops on duty.

After yesterday's evening news I'd say that Louisiana is to be found somewhere between the Congo and Liberia.

[lightfighter]

Originally Posted by throttlemeister

..... It does help if you know what your rights are......

thats a nice summary article.

[martincito]

There is case now in the news about a cop that shot an unarmed person in the subway a few years ago.
Fortunately a passenger recorded the execution with a cell phone, anyways was kind of useless, he is a cop and is just getting four years.

"The shooting was captured on a bystander's cell-phone video camera. The video was widely circulated on the Internet and on news broadcasts, and it spurred several protests in and around Oakland.
The video showed Mehserle pulling his gun and fatally shooting Grant in the back as another officer knelt on the unarmed man."

78 protesters arrested after verdict in killing of unarmed black man - CNN.com

[lightfighter]

Originally Posted by martincito

There is case now in the news about a cop that shot an unarmed person in the subway a few years ago.
Fortunately a passenger recorded the execution with a cell phone, anyways was kind of useless, he is a cop and is just getting four years.

i imagine if he wasnt a cop, and accidently shot someone under similar circumstances, he would have gotten less. seriously.

he was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing, and did it improperly. (very improperly, which is what makes it criminal). if you were at work, doing your job, but you screwed it up, you probably wouldnt go to prison.

4 years is a reasonable sentence, maybe a little harsh by some estimations.

[martincito]

Originally Posted by lightfighter

i imagine if he wasnt a cop, and accidently shot someone under similar circumstances, he would have gotten less. seriously.

he was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing, and did it improperly. (very improperly, which is what makes it criminal). if you were at work, doing your job, but you screwed it up, you probably wouldnt go to prison.

4 years is a reasonable sentence, maybe a little harsh by some estimations.

Definitely we think very different on this subject.

[Rick Lee]

That cop is gonna be popular in the joint. And when he gets out, he's a convicted felon, can't own guns, can't vote and will be lucky to get a mall security guard job. Yes, the sentence is light compared to what I'd get for doing the same thing. But his life is screwed. And he'll probably face civil liability for the rest of his life too.

[lightfighter]

rick, that is exactly what i mean

martin, i really dont mean to be inflamatory, but the whole "hang 'em high" mentality towards cops when they screw up is pretty stale emotional response to a complicated cerebral issue. all you do by demanding aggravated sentencing for cops is A)ensure that the more cerebral people out there dont want the job, and B) encourage covering up mistakes.

that guys life is over even if he doesnt spend a day in prison. I dont hae a reliable statistic for you, but a disproportionate number of cops involved in shootings go on to kill themselves, and even more where they are found to be bad shoots.

[martincito]

Originally Posted by lightfighter

rick, that is exactly what i mean

martin, i really dont mean to be inflamatory, but the whole "hang 'em high" mentality towards cops when they screw up is pretty stale emotional response to a complicated cerebral issue. all you do by demanding aggravated sentencing for cops is A)ensure that the more cerebral people out there dont want the job, and B) encourage covering up mistakes.

that guys life is over even if he doesnt spend a day in prison. I dont hae a reliable statistic for you, but a disproportionate number of cops involved in shootings go on to kill themselves, and even more where they are found to be bad shoots.

I don't believe on the the whole "hang 'em high" but justice should be the same to everybody.
Lindsay Lohan is going to spend more time in jail just for getting wasted. ; )

These tragedies happen in part due to the cops behavior.
Did the dead guy something really bad to deserve being tased?
Police can not insult, humiliate or punish citizens on the street. And I see it all the time.
This thread started showing a case of a cop pulling out a gun to a guy on a bike and a while back we had the thread of the Harley-Bandana guy getting shot on the back.
The cop pulling the gun should at least loose his job. Is the only way to avoid nasty incidents like the one in the subway. But instead of that, the guy with the camera is the one facing charges.
I know cops have a dangerous job and risk their lives but many of them use that as excuse to release their prepotence and frustration to the rest of the citizen.
You can see in the face of the cop in the video at the beginning of this thread. He is furious. if were for him he will punch in the face the motorist. A person like that can not carry a gun.

[lightfighter]

properly handled, that incident(the traffic one), will result in a more fully trained officer. We dont consider an officer "fully trained" for 4 or 5 years. If your reaction was to demand limits on officers acting in an off duty capacity for traffic infractions, or to insist that he be punished in a meaningful way, like a short unpaid suspension, then I would agree. but fired, for doing something he is trained to do, having appearantly forgotten he isnt in a marked car? extreme.

you dont fire an investment broker the first time he loses money. If you terminated people for errors, even major ones, you would soon have only transitional employees.

[lightfighter]

he isnt furious, he is indignant. which might be worse, but is strictly a training issue. He is in control, physically, of his actions... muzzle is in a safe direction, trigger finger from what i can see is on the slide, where it should be, he holtsters once he has gained compliance...

OH, my my my... look at the last second or so of the clip. the car behind is a marked unit, uniformed officer. that changes some stuff. im still not sure why he felt like a gun was useful there, but im pretty sure he would explain that he was acting to prevent a pursuit. and if he said so, I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

the video taping charge is still three bags of fertilizer tho.

[Guest24]

I have never understood a society that expects imperfect people to always react perfectly in any given circumstance and yet expect others to excuse their errors when the persons with those expectations, err.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by lightfighter

properly handled, that incident(the traffic one), will result in a more fully trained officer. We dont consider an officer "fully trained" for 4 or 5 years. If your reaction was to demand limits on officers acting in an off duty capacity for traffic infractions, or to insist that he be punished in a meaningful way, like a short unpaid suspension, then I would agree. but fired, for doing something he is trained to do, having appearantly forgotten he isnt in a marked car? extreme.

you dont fire an investment broker the first time he loses money. If you terminated people for errors, even major ones, you would soon have only transitional employees.

Lightfighter, let's say you were that biker and I were that cop. If you were carrying a sidearm and I jumped out of my car with gun in hand and came at you, how long would you wait before drawing down on me? How long before firing? Would you reholster as soon as you heard some stranger say "state police" or would you keep a bead on him and demand to see a badge?

I open carry on my bike occasionally and exactly because drawing from concealment in full riding gear can take a while. Obviously, only criminals and cops carry guns in MD, so the cop had some reason to believe he'd face no armed resistance. But still, he was egregiously wrong for not ID'ing himself instantly. That behavior could have gotten him shot in a lot of other places.

[hawkeyejohn14]

Originally Posted by Nail24

I have never understood a society that expects imperfect people to always react perfectly in any given circumstance and yet expect others to excuse their errors when the persons with those expectations, err.

Who the heck has taken over Bubba's identity on here.... who are you sir?

[lightfighter]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Lightfighter, let's say you were that biker and I were that cop. If you were carrying a sidearm and I jumped out of my car with gun in hand and came at you, how long would you wait before drawing down on me? How long before firing? Would you reholster as soon as you heard some stranger say "state police" or would you keep a bead on him and demand to see a badge?

I open carry on my bike occasionally and exactly because drawing from concealment in full riding gear can take a while. Obviously, only criminals and cops carry guns in MD, so the cop had some reason to believe he'd face no armed resistance. But still, he was egregiously wrong for not ID'ing himself instantly. That behavior could have gotten him shot in a lot of other places.

Im sure you understand that I do have problems with his actions. We show trainees a video in field training, reenacting a shooting where a cop in california got shot and killed while off duty a number of years ago. the "suspect" walked, becuase it was totally justified. he reasonably felt that if he didnt act in his own defense, immediately, he would be killed by a guy in jeans and a tee shirt carrying a .38. However, in light of the marked unit behind him, im not sure its that simple. also, he has a badge on his waiste, nea his holster. Im pretty sure this guy knew it was cops.

but lets say the marked car isnt there. trying to draw on a guy who already has a gun in his hand is a mistake rick, you cant win, unless you are rob leatham or someone like that, and you would be precipitating your own homicide... you dump the clutch and hit him in the crotch with a wheel. If you can ride better than me, you wheelie thru the threat, and drive to the nearest populated place with a phone. If you come off the back of the bike, like i would, you scramble to the curb side, and keep moing as you draw.

does this answer your question?

[Guest24]

Originally Posted by hawkeyejohn14

Who the heck has taken over Bubba's identity on here.... who are you sir?

I'm in my "kinder gentler" mood. I've been at Das Bikehaus for over two weeks now, decompressing.