75 years for taping Police?!? WTF?

[digitaldivas]

This is just fucking retarded!

[PastorSinAlot]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2tlW7lODQsc
fuck the police

[halfpint]

wow thats crazy when they can film you without your consent

[JamesGw]

What the fuck?

[seeandsee]

laws are fucking shit, fight them

[digitaldivas]

I just don't understand, if I was in that state, I would be out rallying for that guy. What is happening to our country?!? Our forefathers would be fucking pissed! People need to wake the fuck up!

[MaDalton]

sounds like Nazi Germany to me - watch out when your neighbours start to disappear

[L-Pink]

What a crock of shit. Does this mean that every time a news station records a hostage situation, asks a cop at a crime scene a question, etc, they are committing a felony because they didn't get permission from each cop on the scene?

.

[Double trouble]

Crazy shit!!

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by digitaldivas

I just don't understand, if I was in that state, I would be out rallying for that guy. What is happening to our country?!? Our forefathers would be fucking pissed! People need to wake the fuck up!

Exactly, why aren't people in the area protesting? The ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union) will show up in force to make sure the right of groups like the KKK aren't violated but this goes un-protested?

.

[MetaMan]

Lets hear about how police are here to serve and protect.

[blackmonsters]

That video made me sick to my stomach.

People video tapes all kinds of things and people in public without their
consent so are these people going to jail also?

I mean, if I'm in a argument at McDonalds and someone records it on their
cell phone and post it on youtube then are they not also breaking the law since
I didn't give them permission. Eavesdropping laws were not written to protect
cops so it must apply to everybody. But then it doesn't dose it?

[Tom_PM]

The news channel should go to jail for 75 years for reporting it now. Multiple counts.

[bronco67]

I'm not much for conspiracy, and crying about police-states -- but this is some scary shit. It appears to be a measure(albeit a non-subtle one) to allow the police to get away with whatever they want.

If anything, taping the police should be encouraged, so they'll stay in check. Do states want their police officers to run around tasing and beating people with no possibility of evidence?

[AzteK]

This is bullshit and it won't stick, or there is more to this story than presented.

[sperbonzo]

Those damn Republican law makers!!!


Oh....


Wait.....



Illinois is the most Democrat-dominated state in the union, measured by the party’s control over state government and its votes for U.S. Senate and president.

The Democrats have controlled the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature since January 2003. They stayed in power even after their two-time governor was impeached following one of the biggest corruption scandals in the state’s history.

The only place Democrats have been running state government longer? West Virginia.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz1WdYAgTOF


No matter WHO votes in this kind of law, they need to be voted out, but for all those who think that this kind of crap only comes from one political party, think again.



.

[MrCain]

That is beyond retarded.

[MaDalton]

Michael, where in the thread was any party mentioned?

You seem to be a bit too focused on the whole dems/gop thing recently - which might not even be your (the americans) problem

[shade001]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

The ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union) will show up in force to make sure the right of groups like the KKK aren't violated

Doubt that. Now if it were the Black Panthers it would be a different story.

[Quentin]

There's some light at the end of the tunnel for this defendant in Illinois, in the form of a ruling issued by the First Circuit Court of Appeals just 5 days ago.

In a the case Glik v. Cunniffe, the Court held that the citizens have a First Amendment right to record the police in public settings. Among other things, the court stated in its ruling:

It is firmly established that the First Amendment?s aegis extends further than the text?s proscription on laws ?abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,? and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, ?the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.? An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that ?[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ?from any source by means within the law.??

and

In our society, police officers are expected to endure significant burdens caused by citizens? exercise of their First Amendment rights. Indeed, ?[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.? The same restraint demanded of law enforcement officers in the face of ?provocative and challenging? speech must be expected when they are merely the subject of videotaping that memorializes, without impairing, their work in public spaces.

You can bet your bottom dollar that quotes from the First Circuit ruling will be front and center in the defense arguments in Michael Allison's case.

If any of you are interested, the Court's ruling in the Glik case can be found here.

[digitaldivas]

Thanks so much for that link, Quentin! The first step is educating the people!

[digitaldivas]

sperbonzo, your right, no matter what the affiliation, these criminals should be voted out of office. The root of the democratic and republican movements are good. I am a democrat and I am not voting for Obama because he lied and did not repeal the patriot act, which has done more to fucking up the bill of rights than ANY other piece of legislation ever presented, and approved by our government.

[digitaldivas]

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by shade001

Doubt that. Now if it were the Black Panthers it would be a different story.

I watched it in downtown Cincinnati.

.

[brassmonkey]

people need to take the power back.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

What a crock of shit. Does this mean that every time a news station records a hostage situation, asks a cop at a crime scene a question, etc, they are committing a felony because they didn't get permission from each cop on the scene?

.

Well they will be treated like google. Laws don't apply because they are "special".

We have "special" citizens/companies in America because we always have had them.

[brassmonkey]

who here lives in that state?

[czarina]

talk about a biased sentence!

[camperjohn64]

There is a reason why cops are called pigs. They are not nice. They are the most dishonorable people on the planet.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Those damn Republican law makers!!!


Oh....


Wait.....



Illinois is the most Democrat-dominated state in the union, measured by the party?s control over state government and its votes for U.S. Senate and president.

The Democrats have controlled the governor?s mansion and both houses of the legislature since January 2003. They stayed in power even after their two-time governor was impeached following one of the biggest corruption scandals in the state?s history.

The only place Democrats have been running state government longer? West Virginia.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz1WdYAgTOF


No matter WHO votes in this kind of law, they need to be voted out, but for all those who think that this kind of crap only comes from one political party, think again.



.

Wow, you found a "loopy" way to make a political post defending republicans.

What a surprise!!!



not.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

There is a reason why cops are called pics. They are not nice. They are the most dishonorable people on the planet.

Ummmmm, there will be no more "pics" of cops.





Disclaimer : I know what you meant to type but being a pest is so entertaining.

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by camperjohn64

There is a reason why cops are called pigs. They are not nice. They are the most dishonorable people on the planet.

they roll in their on shit

[Sly]

I'm not happy with the current state of the police, but the anger in this thread is sort of misguided. The police did not create that law, they may have influenced, but they did not create. Anger should be focused on those that created this law and also the prosecutor.

A crime carries a range of a sentence, multiply that crime by several instances and you get XX years.

This guy will not get 75 years. Hopefully he will find a good lawyer and not get any years. Then hopefully after that a few your lawyers will go after the constitutionality of the law, nationwide, and have it stricken or changed.

Some people say that police are just humans and make mistakes. I disagree. If you are given the responsibility and power to enforce the law, you are no longer a common citizen. Your behavior should be BETTER than the laws you enforce.

[digitaldivas]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

Well they will be treated like google. Laws don't apply because they are "special".

We have "special" citizens/companies in America because we always have had them.

spoken for the truth

[digitaldivas]

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not happy with the current state of the police, but the anger in this thread is sort of misguided. The police did not create that law, they may have influenced, but they did not create. Anger should be focused on those that created this law and also the prosecutor.

A crime carries a range of a sentence, multiply that crime by several instances and you get XX years.

This guy will not get 75 years. Hopefully he will find a good lawyer and not get any years. Then hopefully after that a few your lawyers will go after the constitutionality of the law, nationwide, and have it stricken or changed.

Some people say that police are just humans and make mistakes. I disagree. If you are given the responsibility and power to enforce the law, you are no longer a common citizen. Your behavior should be BETTER than the laws you enforce.

true, but you said it yourself, why enforce it? Imho, police don't want cameras because they don't want to get busted for doing something shady. Of course, not all law enforcement, but there are a good amount of "bad apples" out there, you would have to agree. The fact that we are having a conversation on this travesty, in 2011, is just one of many signs that this country is heading in the wrong direction imho.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not happy with the current state of the police, but the anger in this thread is sort of misguided. The police did not create that law, they may have influenced, but they did not create. Anger should be focused on those that created this law and also the prosecutor.

your kind of thinking makes 0 sense. Every person has their own choice. Police CHOOSE to enforce the law. They are not FORCED. This is exactly what law makers want, always placing blame on an outside force or individual so single people never have to be blamed.

The anger is not mis guided at all. All the anger should be directed at the people that are used as pawns. If you are apart of something that you CHOOSE to be apart of your hands are not washed from the situation.

With your thinking the buck is always passed onto the next guy. Police just as anyone should be accountable for their actions. They choose the job. I would never choose i job i do not agree with 100%.

By your thinking they are being paid for enforcing things they do not agree with. Which is even worse.

Think it over.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not happy with the current state of the police, but the anger in this thread is sort of misguided. The police did not create that law, they may have influenced, but they did not create. Anger should be focused on those that created this law and also the prosecutor.
.

And to note you sound like a complete communist. So the special forces should do as the government says? What is your thinking here?

[Just Alex]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

Those damn Republican law makers!!!


Oh....


Wait.....



Illinois is the most Democrat-dominated state in the union, measured by the party’s control over state government and its votes for U.S. Senate and president.

The Democrats have controlled the governor’s mansion and both houses of the legislature since January 2003. They stayed in power even after their two-time governor was impeached following one of the biggest corruption scandals in the state’s history.

The only place Democrats have been running state government longer? West Virginia.

Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz1WdYAgTOF


No matter WHO votes in this kind of law, they need to be voted out, but for all those who think that this kind of crap only comes from one political party, think again.



.

You ever get tired of this shit? Seriously

[Sly]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

your kind of thinking makes 0 sense. Every person has their own choice. Police CHOOSE to enforce the law. They are not FORCED. This is exactly what law makers want, always placing blame on an outside force or individual so single people never have to be blamed.

The anger is not mis guided at all. All the anger should be directed at the people that are used as pawns. If you are apart of something that you CHOOSE to be apart of your hands are not washed from the situation.

With your thinking the buck is always passed onto the next guy. Police just as anyone should be accountable for their actions. They choose the job. I would never choose i job i do not agree with 100%.

By your thinking they are being paid for enforcing things they do not agree with. Which is even worse.

Think it over.

Prosecutors order arrests all of the time. This guy may or may not have been arrested on the spot. If he wasn't, a prosecutor very likely had him arrested afterwards. So it still goes back to the law and the prosecutor.

Be mad at the police, nothing wrong with that, I'm with you there. Simply saying being mad at them alone isn't going to do much good. There are people above them pulling strings.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by MetaMan

And to note you sound like a complete communist. So the special forces should do as the government says? What is your thinking here?

Apparently its law in 12 states. You think every officer in every one of those 12 states is going to choose to not enforce that law? It's not going to happen. The law needs to go.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by Sly

Prosecutors order arrests all of the time. This guy may or may not have been arrested on the spot. If he wasn't, a prosecutor very likely had him arrested afterwards. So it still goes back to the law and the prosecutor.

Be mad at the police, nothing wrong with that, I'm with you there. Simply saying being mad at them alone isn't going to do much good. There are people above them pulling strings.

the police are meant to serve the people. my anger is on them. in a democratic society they are supposed to serve the people above government. not the other way around.

it does not matter what prosecutors order, if there is no one enforcing it then it does not happen.

the police enforce it so they are to blame. i am not to sure what the world has become but just because you receive orders does not mean you have to act on it. end of the day the police have personal choice in what they enforce. and they have every option to quit the force on the spot or deny all orders.

i do not find it an adequate excuse doing anything just because someone order you to.

[MetaMan]

Originally Posted by Sly

Apparently its law in 12 states. You think every officer in every one of those 12 states is going to choose to not enforce that law? It's not going to happen. The law needs to go.

yes the law should go and no i dont think all officers would not choose to not enforce that law. it is because they are corrupt. that is why the anger at them is not mis guided.

they admittedly accept a paycheck enforcing laws they do not fully believe in.

so how can my anger not be directed or mis guided at a group of people like that?

[Spudstr]

This was found not to be illegal the other day by a federal appeals court. It was your first and 4th amendment rights.

If it goes to the superior court and is held up, federal > state so state laws are not "legal" and will get smacked down.

[bronco67]

Has anyone else said this to a cop that has pulled them over? "Stop acting abusive, because you're my employee, not the other way around"

I have, and it didn't help the situation.

It's sad, but most police officers forget this simple fact -- politicians also.

[HOT/ICE]

wow thats crazy

[digitaldivas]

I have agree with meta, it is this level of abject stupidity of the government that pisses me off even more! Common sense anyone? And IT IS the pawns that carry out these unconstitutional duties every single day that are to blame. whether by purpose or by ignorance, this bullshit just needs to stop.

And people will eventually wake up to this over reaching and over broad laws passed in the guise of "protecting" the populace, but I fear that when this happens, it will be too late.

How long before they come after us, as an industry again because of what we do? something to think about. Defend ALL LIBERTIES imho, because what comes around, most def goes around.

[Quentin]

A little more on the Glik decision, from respected First Amendment scholar and UCLA law prof. Eugene Volokh:

The decision is correct, I think: Just as the right to speak can be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on spending money to speak, or associating in order to speak, it can also be unconstitutionally burdened by restrictions on the gathering of information that is needed to credibly speak.

And the decision is also important. It?s just the latest in a line of circuit court cases, but it?s likely to get a lot of publicity, encourage police departments to respect the public?s rights to openly record police officers in public, and encourage lawyers to challenge violations of these rights. This is especially so because the court held that the right was clearly established, so that the officers won?t have qualified immunity. This means that if the plaintiff proves to the jury that his account of the facts is right, he can recover damages and attorney?s fees.

Note, though, that the decision is quite limited in its scope. It doesn?t, for instance, deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings ? including of police officers in public ? are constitutional (the argument would be that they are permissible ?manner restrictions?).

The First Circuit decision also doesn?t deal with whether the First Amendment right extends to the recording not just of government officials but of others (whether employees of a business or a nonprofit, or private citizens acting outside of any scope of employment). It doesn?t deal with whether state laws that bar surreptitious recordings of supposedly ?private conversations? are constitutional. And it doesn?t discuss the permissible scope of restrictions on videotaping on government property (outside traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks, and parks).

The logic of the opinion is broad enough to strengthen the hand of people who challenge some of these restrictions, and may ultimately lead to some of these restrictions being struck down. But which ones will indeed ultimately be struck down, and which will be upheld, is not clear.

The rough part for Michael Allison (the guy facing 75 years in Illinois) is that based on my understanding of the facts of his case, all of the recordings he made would fall under the list of things that Prof. Volokh noted as questions not dealt with in the First Circuit's ruling in the Glik case. (I believe all of his recordings were made surreptitiously, and I believe at least one of them was made in a context that would not be considered a "public space.")

Here's one thing that strikes me as particularly odd, and particularly unfair, in Michael Allison's case: he was arrested in large part for recording a hearing in his own misdemeanor case (he was charged with violating a zoning ordinance) after being denied his request that a court recorder be present for the hearing.

True, there was a technical/procedural reason that he was denied his request for a court recorder (misdemeanor charges don't entitle you to a court recorder being present; had he been charged with a felony there would have been a recorder present for sure), but it just seems manifestly unjust to refuse a defendant the opportunity to document a hearing in his own case. It seems particularly unjust when that same defendant has filed a lawsuit against the city to challenge the very zoning ordinance that he was charged with violating, and only started recording the police in the first place because he believed he was being harassed in response to his civil suit!

I sure hope that at the end of day, the relevant portion of the Illinois eavesdropping law at question here ends up subject to a permanent injunction against enforcement. If the Illinois state legislature is determined to have a law on the books making it a criminal act to record the police, that law should at least be clearly defined, very narrow in scope, and structured so that it can only be applied very, very infrequently, and only when the circumstances truly call for that manner of restraint.

And to top it all off... 75 years for this sort of "crime" is just excessive to the point of absurdity. There's no way in hell he will receive the max if he's convicted, of course, but for it to even be possible is way the hell out of line.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Spudstr

This was found not to be illegal the other day by a federal appeals court. It was your first and 4th amendment rights.

If it goes to the superior court and is held up, federal > state so state laws are not "legal" and will get smacked down.

Sadly, it is nowhere near that clear cut, even in light of the First Circuit's decision the other day.

[thickcash_amo]

This is crazy. Seems like with a shitty economy and now crazy ass laws like this, we americans are doomed!

[alias]

This guy pissed off the cops so they are flexing.



The guy charged seems like a decent guy, hope he doesn't get fucked over.