Illegal to record on duty officer in 12 states

[thedeparted]

Are Cameras the New Guns? (http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns)


......

and seriously W.T.F at



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




felony and 4 to 15!

[DirtyTrashyHot]

being that I'm from illinois I don't put it past them. its not illegal to have evidence on your side!

[Newkeh]

that is stupid! if they do their job right it wont hurt to have it on cam

[Jokersvirus]

Here in Indiana they LOVE Cameras. They got cameras on the vehicles, tasers, lapels, pretty much anywhere they can still one its most likely there.

To an extend I can see why this is a good thing, if your a law enforcement officer and lets say you got into a fight with a black man and your force was reasonable and there was video of it, do you think the media will play it in its entirely to show what you did to save your own life or just show you beat the crap out of a black person?

I think it should be illegal to an extend, no News station can have the video tapes even after everything is said and done. Should be a Felony to get ahold such video.

[Kink3bird]

Are Cameras the New Guns? (http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns)


......

and seriously W.T.F at



felony and 4 to 15!

Recording on-duty officers is what gang members use to train new recruits. Showing placement of their equipment, walking style, and how they enter and exit vehicles when patrolling and when responding to a call.

There is really no reason you would be recording a officer when on-duty unless you were doing something shady.

It does more good then harm.

[Endgameko]

thats crazy, over here you can film aanything but at the park

[Subb]

is the park a no no for some kinda thing against filming children?

[Jokersvirus]

its how micheal "Pedobear" Jackson stalked his pray.

[DirtyTrashyHot]

its how micheal "Pedobear" Jackson stalked his pray.

:laugh:hillarious

[GrandMoff]

This sets a bad precedence. It leaves civilians defenseless against any claims of police abuse. It is the civilians word against the police officers' word. In a court, where mainly a judge and not a jury would hear the case, the judge, more times than never, will side with the police officer, or just simply throw out the case on the basis of lack of evidence.

Police officers, like any profession, should be held accountable for what they do. Not only do cameras serve as evidence for civilians victims of police abuse, but also for police officers who are alleged to have abused civilians. Out on the street, there is only the police officer and the civilian. The judge, jury, courts, etc. were not around. These individuals rely on tangible evidence to be convinced whether something happened.

[Jokersvirus]

What your forgetting Grandmoff, is that police officers have cameras everywhere, if they are on the road 9 times out of 10 they will have cameras on their tasers, there will be one on the vehicle and sometimes the lepal. Why should a civilian video tape what an officer is doing and give it to the media as a half truth.

Like my example an officer is in the fight for his life and lets say joe blow comes out of no where and records the officer beating the crap out of the guy to save his life. Now you have a person with a video showing an officer doing harm to someone and when people see this, they will not think they will just scream police brutality without even thinking.

and that is a stereotype judges dont always side with the police. Police officers are accountable for their actions problem is people dont understand the fact they go out for next to nothing pay and have the possibility they wont come home to their families.

Only people who should be allowed to video tape is the officer and their vehicle, everytime, EVERYTIME a person or media get ahold of a video tape they screw with it to make it look like the officer was in the wrong, I AM tired of that.

Thats why I believe it should be a felony A to get video from police for any reason, besides to be used in court. And if the media wants to play the video they have to sign a waiver stating they will show it from start to finish without making the officer look bad, if they do not do that they can be sued for discrediting a law enforcement officer.

I will state there are bad police officers, but they do not out weight the good police officers and that is another stereotype. The media plays more "bad police officer" stories and last time i ever heard an officer doing good was over 3 years ago when IMPD, my local police, took children who are poor and took 300 bucks from their own bank accounts to help those little kids have a toy.

[GrandMoff]

If police officers are not allowed to be video tapped without consent, can the same be applied to criminals? In addition, a Felony A is a grievous crime. That would be up there with homicide, and the two don't belong in the same category, in my opinion.

SbsJokerlockdown, you bring up a good point. The police are not recognized for the good they do to a society. It's how the media runs. Who would watch a news story of a police officer who apprehended a criminal? People expect the police to do their jobs. When they do, it's nothing exciting or note worthy. It's just their job. I will side with you on that one.

[Jokersvirus]

I agree to an extend criminals shouldnt be video tape we have the right to privacy and we can use it however we want. But if the criminal comes under investigation by legal means they should be video taped, or if they are being pursued by PIs for legit reasons, or to see if the person is trying to commit fraud. The list goes on and on.

Also about making it a Felony A in my state Murder/Homicide has its own category, it is known as a Felony A but its different, its hard to explain.

I just think it should be illegal to video tape officers and sell them as half truths, but I am in law enforcement, as a student, and my family, father side, has been in the military as police officers, my dad and brother are currently in law enforcement. So i take this very seriously.

[GrandMoff]

I will be honest with you. I took the Devil's Advocate standpoint on this. I do not truly stand behind what I said. When it comes to law enforcement, I side with the police. In this instance, if video tapping police officers does more harm than good to them, outlaw it.

My father and his side of the family were in law enforcement. My father was a police lieutenant in the NYPD. I actually plan on going into law, possibly prosecution.

As for video tapping police officers being a Class A Felony, in NY State, crimes such as homicide are considered Class A felonies. I would not agree video tapping police officers to be comparable with homicide. That is NY State, however. Laws vary amongst states.

To me, police officers do their best with what they have. I feel the police are not recognized for what they do. 99% of the police do nothing intentionally bad, whereas 1% intentionally do harm, and it's the 1% make up 99% of the news stories. This is in whatever field you look at, though. It should be illegal to video tape police officers, in fact, anyone, and sell it as a half truth. Not only is it criminal, it is defamation of character, and could wind someone up in a possible law suit.

[Jokersvirus]

Well video taping police officers needs to have a serious punishment, cause police are just given the worse rep ever and its getting annoying. Now a days people dont care about the person behide the badge they all see them as worthless scum, if one police officer does something wrong they are all guilty of the same crime.

So you show a video tape of someone kicking some butt and dont have the story behide it ya people wont ask questions.