Doubly so since he has a purported agent of "da man" stalking him in this very thread.

The man is watching you make sure you are wearing your tinfoil hat

No, no, no - you read this entirely wrong, sniper. Ted and I are good buddies. We bumped into each other while I was still hoppin' mad about this, and I shared with him the details of my "heated" conversation with the two deputies.

Suffice to say, all three of us said things we should be ashamed of. "Heated" is the understatement of the year - think baseball manager/umpire, toe to toe, hollaring so loud that spit is flying back and forth between them. That was the three of us. Very unprofessional on their part, very childish on my part.

I won't share details of the "conversation" here on this forum, but I did with Ted and a few other friends. I did not include anything more in my letter than a description of the exhange as being "heated", because I don't really think it's relevant. Like I said, all three of us crossed the line. To their credit, they did not merely pepper spray or zap me and stuff me in the car. I owe them an appology for my behavior that day.

As an aside, what kind of got the ball rolling on that front was when I asked them if this stop was being recorded. Two patrol cars, both likely equiped with cameras, both facing where we were standing. It would make sense to have the camera rolling, if for no other reason than for when they hook an ass hole like me. Well, they weren't filming. When they told me that, I made some off the cuff remark about how they couldn't afford to be, as I was sure their last several "customers" all protested that they were, in fact, doing the limit. Just like me. One fired back that he "didn't like what I was implying", so I answered that I wasn't implying anything - that I was making it clear they were fleecing innocent motorists, and could not afford to be filming such. It was off to the races from there...

Ya gotta love the Irish!

[QUOTE=Heel n Toe;4622991

Plus, every time I see the screen name "teenerted1" the first 4 letters subconsciously make me think "teenager."

But I'm sure that's not the case.[/QUOTE]

I'm a full drinking age past being a teenager...in fact in a couple of months i could qualify for twice the drinking age. seems like yesterday i was out buying my first LEGAL beer. man the years just float by don't they

the handle refers to when i started posting on Pelican i had a 914. that is no longer the case. "911ted" just didn't have the same ring to it. plus who wants to cut their post count in half:D



back to your regular programming.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

Thought you were being mocked by the man- pissed me off on your behalf. ;)

Can you, as the citizen suspect, request that the cameras be turned on at a traffic stop?

Sorry about misinterpreting your remarks. :)

Good question. Going one step further, why can't the entire alleged violation be filmed? In this day and age of cheap video recording, how hard would it be to include a video recording device in the SMD, that shows the suspect vehicle with a crosshair on it, and reads out exactly how fast it is going?

I rather strongly suspect that the entire unholy traffic infraction industry would crumble under such full disclosure. "Your honor, I had him at 72 in a 60" sounds pretty bad. Until we see the film, and the target vehicle is maintaining the same lane, on straight, level road, with the sparse traffic around him all doing 69-70. "Your honor, the film clearly shows the suspect travelling a good 2-3 mph faster than the surrounding traffic" just doesn't have the same zing, now does it?

In my case, any film from the SMD would quickly settle this. It would clearly show us approaching as a group, all going the same speed, with me about 50 yards off the back. These two dishonest deputies would have been out of business; I'm sure they would not have even tried this crap if they were required to produce film of each and every alleged infraction. No film = instant dismissal for lack of evidence. If a "reasonable man" watching the film cannot detect anything that stands out from the pack, or anything that looks like a threat to public safety, the case is dismissed.

I cannot believe we have reached the point we have, right here in the U.S. of A., on this whole traffic enforcement issue. We sound like some Third World country, using our LEO's as the pointy end of the stick in a scam like this. Speed limits set artificially low so as to catch more "speeders". No evidence required for a conviction, just the cop's accusation (which is erroneously deemed to be "evidence" (wink, wink...) by the courts). A standard of "evidence" formerly reserved for civil suits - "preponderance", or 51%. The rather contemptuous baseline assumption of the courts that the officer is inherently more honest than the citizen. The "wink, wink" assertion that there is no "pressure" or "motivation" for the officer to write or for the court to convict. The city, county, and state budgets that now include ticket revenue as a line item source of income. U.S. citizens being treated like children, with the underlying implication that we cannot make adult decisions regarding safe and prudent driving.

This has simply got to come to an end. We need to demand the right to a jury trial. We need to demand the evidence standard be raised back up to "reasonable doubt". We need to demand that real evidence be produced, if necessary taking advantage of readily available, cheap recording technologies. And, most of all, we need to remove the profit motive from enforcement.

I wrote my first letter ever to a public official. It won't be my last. The next volley will be directed at my state Representatives, Senator, and Governor. The gist will be what I covered above. It's high time they start treating their constituants like adults, and put an end to this sham. We are not a Third World country...

I wouldn't advertise to the cops that you're filming, but it's not illegal to do so as long as it doesn't interfere with their doing their jobs. They have no problem running dash-mounted cameras or letting Cops camera crews follow them around. Of course, if more people stung the cops with these cameras, their behavior might improve.

A lot of states(39 i think?) are 2 party consent states.

In such states it would be wholly illegal to tape the cops without their knowledge, based on my understanding of the law.

Which is funny, because the cops never ask consent of anyone when videotaping, and I bet most of the cruisers in those states are equiped with cameras.

Pretty sure that two-party rule applies to telephone / wire-tap sitautions where there is an expectation of privacy.
No expectation of privacy in a traffic stop.

You are fortunate that this confrontation did not happen in B.C..
You would be covered in Taser wounds, perhaps even dead.
Seriously.

I've heard of the same down here. In retrospect, I was lucky. Lucky they were at least professional enough to draw the line at a bad ticket and verbal abuse. They very well could have escalated it beyond that.


Washington is a two party consent state, but the traffic cops regularly film their stops. I think it does get back to that "expectation of privacy" thing. They make it a point to inform you that they are taping, so I'm not sure if we could actually refuse. I have never had occasion to find out.

There is a rather infamous local case brewing involving a Seattle cop and a local Hells Angel. This is the cop that shot one of this gentleman's club members in Sturgis last year, or the year before. Seems our local HA member has taken to calling this cop personally, and recording their conversations. In them, the cop very clearly threatens him. The cop brags about being "part of the biggest gang on Earth - 'the gang in blue'", doing his best to let the HA member know that this "gang in blue" is tougher than the HA, and quite untouchable to boot. The tapes are pretty disturbing, really, but will never be allowed in court. The biker (obviously) didn't secure this cop's consent to record. Amazing.

We are told constantly that police are "held to a higher standard". This two party consent is meant to protect us from them, not the other way around. To me, this "higher standard" would allow for citizens to tape cops at any time when they are on the job, or speaking "as a cop", as a way of protecting ourselves. Cops never have anything to hide, after all. Do they?

I believe this translates into "above the law".

I'd rather have both of our bad behaviour taped, than none.

There was just a big stink about it cause one of the laywers in one of these bailout proceedings was taping a face to face conference.

Google it.

I think 2 party applies to any conversation, but i could be wrong.

Same here. In Philly he would've PROBABLY been severely beaten and arrested.

I have executed some over the top rants at philly cops (up to and including nazi references), but i always preface it with, "I am a veteran, i defended this country when you were a little kid."

Seems to buy a fellow a LOT of leeway. Still, one must be extremely careful.

My cousin got the living **** kicked out of him once for giving a philly cop an attitude.

My understanding regarding the recording issue is that notice must be given for sound recordings. I am not sure what effect a refusal to consent to being recorded would have.

I believe either party may take video recordings without consent.