Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Illegal to film COPS!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Vegetarian Barbarian, Jun 14, 2010.

  1. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    1

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

    3 state judges (Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland) have deemed it illegal to film any on-duty police officer even if they are breaking the law, or committing murder. The fucked up logic for this is that the filming can only be used if the police officers filmed consent to it, and they never will. So the filmmakers can be arrested. But to make if fucking illegal?

    I dont think the article talks about the person, but there is a guy i read about that was arrested after he had filmed a police officer harassing him on his bike.

    Is this enough evidence to get you off your ass and kill a cop?
     

  2. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    71

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 35 years old
    Canada United States
    wow... so good bye copwatch

    but last year there was riots in the USA after the police killed or beaten up a black dude in some state (i really forgot about the details of the story)... i wonder what will happen now... If the cops kill or beat someone without reason, the medias will refuse to air it on the TV because they can get sued.... holy shit, here goes the freedom of medias...

    and now all cops who abuse will be juged not guilty because of the lack of proofs....
     
  3. Vegetarian Barbarian

    Vegetarian BarbarianExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    719

    1

    0

    Oct 19, 2009
     
    The story your referring to ungov happened in Oakland, CA. Transit cops shot an unarmed man in a train terminal and it was caught on cell phones from people on a train. I actually donated some moneys to the organizers of that march. But yes, this story is frightening to me because how many more states are gunna jump on this trend you know?
     
  4. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    71

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 35 years old
    Canada United States
    Yes, thats exactly the story i was talking about ! I can't believe i forgot about it....

    So basically, with the new law, the cops would have been aquitted and the one who filmed it with cell phone would be guilty of breaking the law... wtf??
     
  5. rude-boy

    rude-boyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    432

    0

    0

    Mar 12, 2010
     
    ya i posted this on the cop watch thread a few weeks ago... its bad news. the cop watch story made me so happy that there was somthing people could do to police the police a bit. and now even that is slowly being taken away from us. i wish there was some one filming me the other night maybe the cops would not have been so rough...i need a cvamera bad so i can take a picture of the cuts on my face and brusing all on my arm from those cock suckers :@

    i would like to know though, can a person really get in trouble by turning in evidence of police brutality or police breaking the law? like thats the dumbest shit ever. we walk down the street. you look up hey its a camera on the light post watching the road. if im going to be walking around being filmed by them why the fuck cant i film them? is it unsafe? i dont see any good reason the cops could use that would be good enough for it to be against the law to film them
     
  6. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Those laws are completely against their bullshit constitution and are in theory illegal laws, but of course the right wing supreme court justices would never apply real justice to these now blatant police states. Fucking unbelievable......
     
  7. Bunny

    BunnyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    201

    0

    1

    Mar 13, 2010
     
    What's unbelievable is that people defend this. Their argument is that people don't understand what a cop's job requires and that they're doing this to keep us safe. It's a bullshit argument and a weak excuse for wanting to believe that cops do no wrong.
    Now the question is, how are we going to keep are selves safe from cops? Like Ungov said any time they're brought up on something, they'll get off because there'll be little evidence to prove it.
     
  8. rude-boy

    rude-boyExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    432

    0

    0

    Mar 12, 2010
     
    well for now dont go to the tree states...but im sure it will spread pretty quick..any one good at fast sketching and drawing?
     
  9. AtomicKhaos

    AtomicKhaosExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    116

    0

    0

    Nov 16, 2009
     
    this is totally against the constitution. whats fucked is, is i was planning to move to boston. guess thats out. same as chicago.

    clearly the police force in these three states are up to something...
     
  10. wafflecakes219

    wafflecakes219Active Member Forum Member


    35

    0

    2

    Dec 14, 2009
     
    god this is fucking bullshit! i live in illinois, and just last year cops in the town next to mine shot an unarmed black man inside a church in front of the daycare service there :@
     
  11. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    Actually it is not. There is nothing in the constitution about this. The closest thing you could find would be the 4th amendment. This could be used as an argument in certain situations. For this to work you would have to maintain a good distance from the cops. At least 50 feet. Any closer and they could say you are obstructing justice. Second, don't say a word to them. Again this can be construed as obstruction. If at all possible stand near a surveillance camera. They cannot argue obstruction if you are filming what is already being filmed. Most importantly stay low key. Do not draw attention to yourself.
     
  12. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    71

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 35 years old
    Canada United States
    Wow you really love your constitution don't you ? Sounds like you know it all by heart.

    And actually yes there is a law that says you have the right to assist and record police interventions, they explain it in the Copwatch documentary.
     
  13. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Of course it is, "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech" period. You defend the freedom of hatespeech but you deny the people to have equal protection under the law?...hahahahahaha. :ecouteurs: and justices don't get to pass laws without consent of the people..as for obstructing justice it is the absolute fucking right of the people to defend themselves from police criminality at all times. Again ghoulish troll you stick your foot in your mouth....
     
  14. ghoul

    ghoulExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    169

    0

    0

    May 16, 2010
     
    I do in fact. Anyone in their right mind would want to learn the rules to the game. It's idiotic not no know them. Learn the rules that they use against you and you can use them against them.
    Congress hasn't passed any law saying you cannot video tape cops. The article states that judges have ruled that it can be construed as obstruction.Therefore no constitutional infringement there. Is it bullshit? Yes. Is it congress passing a law? Nope.

    You people are some of the most close minded ignorant people I've talked to. Do you even know how to read? How the hell do you get the idea that I am defending that bullshit? I was stating how to video the cops with the least amount of legal repercussions to you while leaving you the most ammunition against the cops should they try to stop you. I absolutely agree that people should police the police.
     
  15. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Yes I can read and there it is in your text "there is nothing in the constitution about this" and yet there is isn't there and you go on to boldly state "this can be used as an argument in certain situations" laughable. Of course I don't think you really want the police to have these powers but what good is filming from more than fifty feet away when the abuse is in close and you can't really record reliable audio from that distance. Also Idiot right wing judges make illegally unconstitutional rulings ALL THE TIME that sometimes are corrected but usually not. And finally ghoul the advice you so eloquently and unselfishly offer is the exact same advice Copwatch dispels in their videos.
     
  16. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     
    not recording audio will work in most cases as well. the wiretapping statutes they're using to prosecute the videographers generally only apply to audio recordings. if you were to record video only, you'd typically at least be able to avoid the wiretapping laws if charged. though personally, rather then looking for ways around it, i'd rather see more people openly engaging in civil disobedience and audio/video record anyways. the more obedience we show to their laws, the more control they have over us. if enough people started filming cops in these states and were willing to get arrested for it, the courts in those states could easily be backed up to the point where legislators would have to consider changing the laws because they wouldn't be able to deal with thousands of petty wiretapping charges for filming cops in addition to all the legitimate crimes they would have to prosecute.

    philly recently moved to convert pending small marijuana possession charges to summary offenses(the equivalent of a speeding ticket) rather then continuing to try them as misdemeanors because the number of pending marijuana cases in the city were preventing them from being able to handle their other cases and that back log wasn't even the result of mass civil disobedience.
     
  17. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     

    sorry dude, audio/video recording doesn't constitute as engaging in free speech. ghoul is right, there's no constitutional protection for this but as lysander spooner would say, "whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
     
  18. punkmar77

    punkmar77Experienced Member Uploader Experienced member


    5,737

    187

    718

    Nov 13, 2009
     United States
    Again I disagree, I think the recording of information that can bare witness in any fashion is absolutely covered, specially when it is recording criminal acts by a law enforcement apparatus. In theory it becomes part of my speech to fellow citizens. Now we can all agree to disagree, just as everyone is want to do and will continue to do. On the other hand I do agree wholeheartedly that it is unfit to continue...
     
  19. ungovernable

    ungovernableAutonome Staff Member Uploader Admin Team Experienced member


    4,339

    71

    24

    Aug 21, 2009
    Male, 35 years old
    Canada United States
    Freedom of press is part of free speech.
     
  20. voluntaryistpunk

    voluntaryistpunkMember Forum Member


    14

    0

    0

    Jun 7, 2010
     

    if you're actually a representative of the press, you might be able to try to pull that one off however the federal government has specific regulations banning video recording for commercial purposes on federal property without permission so it's doubtful that argument would stand up if they've been able to consistently get away with prohibiting that in the past. hell, anarchists were arrested in the US on obscenity charges for publishing underground newspapers proposing the radical idea that a husband having sex with his wife against her will was rape just a century ago under the same constitution we have today.

    here's some video of a camera man being arrested after stating he was with the press while filming a fully informed jury outreach event at the federal courthouse in manhattan:
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3wVobgcQfk[/video]
     
Loading...