[stylinexpat]

Originally Posted by ferrari355fi

We are human. We get pissed, and react. The cop might have fucked up (not knowing if there is a back story), but you don't instigate stuff by putting a camera in someone's face and asking them a question that implicates them in illegal activity.

True but those that are supposed to maintain law and order are supposed to be able to restrain themselves from getting pissed and reacting wrongly. A guy with a loaded gun that is supposed to enforce the law is also supposed to serve and protect the public. By reacting in a negative way he is neither serving nor protecting the public. It is all about how they are taught to react and deal with the public. One sees this in the US but rarely in Europe or Asia (not saying that it does not happen but most likely far less likely to happen in Asia than the US). Bottom line is the US consists of States that are Police ran. Unfortunately this is quite sad.

[BMWinNorthdakota]

the dude was 15 feet away, dudes... def not "In his face".. nor did he ever simply tell him to stop.

tons of information on the video if you click "details" under da vid

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by 1cleanm3

Disturbing. What a little piece of shit for hitting the girl like that. Oh wait, im sure hell use "I was concerned about my safety" and totally get away with it. I hope karma gets him back.

He will say that she was fleeing a crime scene and resisting arrest. And to some extent it is true. If she attacked another person, then there is a good chance she will attack a cop to get away from being arrested.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by KGB7

If i asked you not to film me, then you should respect my wish and stop filming me. Its that simple.

The cop could have done the same, or simply ignore the kid with his camera since then cop wasnt doing anything illegal other talking to a person in a car. For all we know, the cop could have been talking to his brother.

In the end, what the cop did was wrong.

It seems obvious that what the cop did was wrong, and I agree with that. On your main point that about respecting your wish to not be filmed: Do you extend that idea to all the cameras that the government has set up in public places to film you and everyone constantly? It seems to me that if the government can invade your privacy by filming you despite your objections, then you as an individual should have no restriction either legally or morally.

Also, should professional news reporters be treated the same way as this kid?

And should citizens who do not wear a badge and uniform be justified in their actions that mirror the attitude and reaction of the cop? Was the kid doing anything illegal? Should one who is not violating the law have to endure such control measures?

If this were the normal reaction of police, then it is certainly a police state. I would hope that this is an example of just one rogue cop that needs to be exposed as the kid was simply trying to do.

[Negotiator]

Videotaping in public is not legal in all states. Rather not videotaping, but recording sound, which in this case clearly happened.

For the record, fuck this cop. Everyone has to show professionalism in their respective field, and if you are given power by the public, it's even more important that you don't overstep your bounds.

[DarkRider23]

Originally Posted by ferrari355fi

So you wouldn't be pissed if I walked up to you out of nowhere and shoved a camera in your face? It's a free country, man. Bill of rights, man. Fuck the machine, man.

There is something called respecting someone's space, and showing common courtesy. Far too many people have no respect for anything that isn't their own.

The kid was nowhere near the cop. He was at least 15'-20' away. If you want to film me from that distance, go right ahead. I don't give a shit. If you're in my face, I'll ask you to stop and will cover up the camera any chance I get until you leave. Arresting him was completely out of line. The cop didn't even bother to ask the damn kid to stop.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by scottwww

It seems obvious that what the cop did was wrong, and I agree with that. On your main point that about respecting your wish to not be filmed: Do you extend that idea to all the cameras that the government has set up in public places to film you and everyone constantly? It seems to me that if the government can invade your privacy by filming you despite your objections, then you as an individual should have no restriction either legally or morally.

Also, should professional news reporters be treated the same way as this kid?

And should citizens who do not wear a badge and uniform be justified in their actions that mirror the attitude and reaction of the cop? Was the kid doing anything illegal? Should one who is not violating the law have to endure such control measures?

If this were the normal reaction of police, then it is certainly a police state. I would hope that this is an example of just one rogue cop that needs to be exposed as the kid was simply trying to do.

Cameras that the government has set up in public places are for security purpose and the videos will stay away from public eyes.


You filming me scratching my balls in public will end up on youtube.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by KGB7

Cameras that the government has set up in public places are for security purpose and the videos will stay away from public eyes.

You filming me scratching my balls in public will end up on youtube.

Is it fair to presume that government video cameras in public places are about documenting crime while it occurs? Was this kid potentially documenting crime while it occurred? Apparently this cop had a reputation already. The kid succeeded in showing why.

[KGB7]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Is it fair to presume that government video cameras in public places are about documenting crime while it occurs? Was this kid potentially documenting crime while it occurred? Apparently this cop had a reputation already. The kid succeeded in showing why.

Simply put, i dont want to end up on youtube because i like to deep throat a popsicle.

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by stylinexpat

True but those that are supposed to maintain law and order are supposed to be able to restrain themselves from getting pissed and reacting wrongly. A guy with a loaded gun that is supposed to enforce the law is also supposed to serve and protect the public. By reacting in a negative way he is neither serving nor protecting the public. It is all about how they are taught to react and deal with the public. One sees this in the US but rarely in Europe or Asia (not saying that it does not happen but most likely far less likely to happen in Asia than the US). Bottom line is the US consists of States that are Police ran. Unfortunately this is quite sad.

That was a joke, right? If this happened in most Asian countries (eg. Singapore), that kid would have been beaten and had his video camera smashed.

[Freakazoid]

Originally Posted by pman10

That was a joke, right? If this happened in most Asian countries (eg. Singapore), that kid would have been beaten and had his video camera smashed.

that's why you wouldn't have seen it

[jpsum]

Believe or not, they could get him for WIRE TAPPING instead. This is becoming a more and more common charge.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...59019675.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...e-wiretap-law/

http://www.copblock.org/1878/massach...ded-for-trial/

[jpsum]

The police has the rights to arrest as long as they have evidence or reason to believe a crime was committed. In this case, the officer himself is the witness to a crime - so he claimed. Whether the reason for the arrest is valid or not, that's another issue. But technically, I don't think he was unlawfully detained as he was told that he was being arrested and the reason why. There are so many excuses the police can make up to detain you - i.e., like if they believe you are attempting to hurt yourself, they can detain you without arresting you.

[len56]

it should definitely be totally legal to film cops

if they're doing their jobs properly, then they have nothing to worry about.
if they're abusing they're power, then it's a big problem, and it's good to have evidence.

[radix]

Originally Posted by jpsum

Believe or not, they could get him for WIRE TAPPING instead. This is becoming a more and more common charge.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...59019675.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...e-wiretap-law/

http://www.copblock.org/1878/massach...ded-for-trial/

ND is not a two party consent state.

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by jpsum

Believe or not, they could get him for WIRE TAPPING instead. This is becoming a more and more common charge.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...59019675.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...e-wiretap-law/

http://www.copblock.org/1878/massach...ded-for-trial/

That's just damned crazy! There are all kinds of abuses in what the police state does. I would bet that 98% of people wouldn't believe that such an abuse of the law and the courts is happening unless they see it. Even then, most would probably deny that it happens, or accede to the governments position.

The USA has lost it's identity, and much of the populace is weak, if not pathetic in silently accepting it.

[talisman311]

What a pathetic cop.. He should probably choose a more appropriate profession like a dish washer. Little interaction with the public.

No Miranda rights and interrogating a minor without a parent or legal guardian present? Way to do a 180 on the law and break it instead of enforcing it.

[scollins]

So what did we see in that first video? ONLY what the guy wanted you to see. This is the big problem with video "evidence." Just because it is video doesn't mean it isn't biased or easily taken out of context, but people want to believe it wholesale.

Maybe the guy was badgering the cop for 15 minutes prior to starting the tape, asking about the raids, trying to get a rise out of the cop. Maybe the cop tells the guy "knock it off, those issues are currently under investigation, and if you keep pestering me about it, I'll arrest for interfering with an on-going investigation." Guy walks off for a few minutes, then comes with his camera to antagonize the cop, and gets his "I was illegally detailed evidence" crap.

Not saying that is what happened, but just keep context in mind when viewing these videos, and that just because it is video doesn't necessarily represent the truth, or what actually happened. Sometimes yes, but when video is taken with a clear objective in mind (getting harassed/arrested) you have to wonder.....

[scottwww]

Originally Posted by scollins

So what did we see in that first video? ONLY what the guy wanted you to see. This is the big problem with video "evidence." Just because it is video doesn't mean it isn't biased or easily taken out of context, but people want to believe it wholesale.

Maybe the guy was badgering the cop for 15 minutes prior to starting the tape, asking about the raids, trying to get a rise out of the cop. Maybe the cop tells the guy "knock it off, those issues are currently under investigation, and if you keep pestering me about it, I'll arrest for interfering with an on-going investigation." Guy walks off for a few minutes, then comes with his camera to antagonize the cop, and gets his "I was illegally detailed evidence" crap.

Not saying that is what happened, but just keep context in mind when viewing these videos, and that just because it is video doesn't necessarily represent the truth, or what actually happened. Sometimes yes, but when video is taken with a clear objective in mind (getting harassed/arrested) you have to wonder.....

You are right in questioning what came before. Don't take anything at face value. Has anyone seen information on what came before? In the absense of additional information, if the video that was presented is all that is available, it carries the most weight in an argument.

Your words should also be applied to the news services, government press releases, and everything else where the information given by one biased source can be very different in the original context.

Trust noone.

[jpsum]

Originally Posted by radix

ND is not a two party consent state.

True.

[pc4400]

It is a fed offense to photograph a federal agent or any federal building without expressed written permission. While a cop is no fed, one can see how this can get in a grey area.

Regardless, if one wants to see a caop do something dum, hide the camera and keep rolling!!!

[ideliver]

Don't start no shit, it won't be no shit....words to live by