Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
crøtch
climber
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2015 - 05:37pm PT
|
The way I read it, that Oregon law is about video piracy, not the creation of original works.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2015 - 07:35pm PT
|
From Brandon Brooks, the 15 yr old kid who videotaped the Texas pool party incident:
"I was one of the only white people in the area."
"You can see in part of the video where he tells us to sit down, and he kind of skips over me and tells all my African-American friends to go sit down."
"I think personally it's because there are bunch of African-Americans in the neighborhood."
"They're just going to discriminate against them because they're black."
So I guess at least according to Brandon's first hand account they're ok with you videotaping if you're white, but if you're one of his black friends, well, just watch the video.
Where in this case they is the Officer of the Year (2008) in the Best Place to Live in America (Money magazine). But I try to think of they as us. Good luck to us :-)
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2015 - 10:17pm PT
|
510
509 was an 86 year old living out of his car who had a knife and was threatening suicide.
So the cops obliged him and shot him.
Killedbypolice.net
|
|
dondraper
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 - 02:26am PT
|
Lorenzo Video and audio taping and photographing in public in all 50 states is legal per the US government courts and justice dept. Google it. The question isn't whether it's legal. The question is will the police confiscate your camera, beat you or arrest you on a bullshit made up charge like loitering for videotaping/photographing. I was told to move along by a deputy for taking pics of a guy bleeding on a public street. Then one gets to decide if their convictions are worth being handcuffed.
|
|
dondraper
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 - 02:30am PT
|
don't cite a website from 2012 when spewing ignorance. Laws change weekly. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-police-officers-and-public-officials
First Amendment considerations arise when you are openly recording the activities of police officers (or other public officials) carrying out their duties in public places. A number of U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that, in such circumstances, the First Amendment protects the right to record audio and video regardless of whether the police/officials consent. This constitutional right would override any state or federal laws that would otherwise prohibit such recording.
Currently, the following U.S. Courts of Appeals have recognized the First Amendment right to record the police and/or other public officials:
First Circuit (with jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island): see Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 85 (1st Cir. 2011) ("[A] citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment."); Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1999) (police lacked authority to prohibit citizen from recording commissioners in town hall "because [the citizen's] activities were peaceful, not performed in derogation of any law, and done in the exercise of his First Amendment rights[.]").
Seventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin): see ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595 (7th Cir. 2012) ("The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment's guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.").
Ninth Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington): see Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 438 (9th Cir. 1995) (assuming a First Amendment right to record the police); see also Adkins v. Limtiaco, _ Fed. App'x _, No. 11-17543, 2013 WL 4046720 (9th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (recognizing First Amendment right to photograph police, citing Fordyce).
Eleventh Circuit (with jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia): see Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) ("The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest.").
The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey likewise recognized the existence of such a right in Ramos v. Flowers, Docket No. A-4910-10T3 (N.J. App. Div. Sept. 21, 2012), relying heavily on the First Circuit's reasoning in the Glik case.
If you are recording in New Jersey or in one of the states or territories within the First, Seventh, Ninth or Eleventh Circuits, the First Amendment right to record should protect you against prosecution for recording the police or other public officials as they carry out their duties in public places.
Even if you are not within these jurisdictions, these decisions may be persuasive to other courts. Although two other U.S. Courts of Appeals have declined to hold that a First Amendment right to record was "clearly established" as of particular dates in the past, see Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, 622 F.3d 248, 261-62 (3rd Cir. 2010); Szymecki v. Houck, 353 Fed. App'x 852, 852 (4th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), none so far have rejected the existence of such a right. Furthermore, the United States Department of Justice has openly stated its position that the First Amendment protects all U.S. citizens who record the activities of the police in public, and has intervened in at least one civil rights lawsuit against police officers to support that First Amendment right. See Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Dep't, No. 1:11-cv-02888-BEL (D. Md. Statement of Interest filed January 10, 2012).
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 - 06:19am PT
|
How is it that some of those who (correctly) talk about First Amendment rights in this context ignore the fact that many of the cases vindicating those rights involve corporations? After all, many of those same people argue that the holding in Citizens United was novel because it recognized First Amendment rights of corporations.
To get back to on topic for the off topic topic, The First Amendment jurisprudence, cited above, provides that the laws against unauthorized recording do not apply to public officials performing public acts. Police acting in an official capacity perform public acts. Thus, as mentioned above, if your recordings survive the encounter, they are protected and admissible.
John
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 - 10:31am PT
|
Ho man, stirred up a little shltstorm.
Yeah, the first amendment is handy, but know enough to keep your distance. But things are changing. Straight up good cops all seem to be in favor of mandatory body cameras. Perhaps accountability will soften the culture.
I already beat a speeding ticket because the cop said something to somebody out of my earshot forgetting he had a hot mike on his collar. The DA dropped the charge when I requested a copy of the car's video rather than edit it. (At least he was ethical.)
Didn't even have to hire a mouthpiece.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2015 - 11:25am PT
|
Thus, as mentioned above, if your recordings survive the encounter, they are protected and admissible.
John
If that's the case use an APP like periscope.
Streams live and saved to a server.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 12:27pm PT
|
^~~ I was waiting for that. Now do CBS etc. sell their "stuff"?
|
|
Sioux Juan
Big Wall climber
Costa mesa
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
so !! ? how many times have you been in jail ? ? ?
...............5
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2015 - 09:43pm PT
|
520.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2015 - 05:45pm PT
|
If they were military and did the same thing in Iraq they'd be in Ft Leavenworth right now.
Best post on the intardnet I've seen on this today.
I’ve never been a cop, but I have been a soldier. After over a decade of experience I can tell you that sometimes people get scared & confused when there is yelling, flashing lights, sirens, weapons, and related stimulus. Almost similar to a deer being caught in the headlights and acting strange. Your job as the good guy with the gun is to decide whether or not the guy is just scared or an actual threat, and believe it or not it is pretty easy to tell the difference. What I saw in that video is clearly a scared man attempting to figure out what’s going on, and acting like people sometimes do when the mental stress of the situation is overwhelming. The police in that situation had an extreme lack of courage, a certain amount of which is required of “the good guys”. Sad story all around.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2015 - 10:05am PT
|
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/07/why-police-cant-be-trusted-to-decide-if-video-should-be-public/398708/
"The footage was only released this week because the Los Angeles Times, AP, and Bloomberg undertook the time and expense of a months long legal battle to liberate it from city officials with perverse incentives to suppress it.
suppressing the footage left the public unable to evaluate Deputy District Attorney Rosa Alarcon’s decision against filing charges against the cops. It left experts outside the Gardena police department unable to review the incident and offer advice on how similar tragedies might best be avoided. It left Gardena voters without key information about the performance of its police force; unable to opine to elected officials on the incident; and unable to evaluate whether the officials responded properly. The community was also deprived of footage needed to decide whether it wanted those police officers to continue being paid to carry guns."
that's right, the cops are still on duty, even after the city lost a $4.7 million judgement.
|
|
Gorgeous George
Trad climber
Los Angeles, California
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2015 - 01:28pm PT
|
The young man shot in Gardena was trying to tell the cops they had the "wrong guys," that they themselves were looking for the guy that had stolen his brother's bike. In their description they cite the "aggressive Manner" in which he stepped forward. Study the video, nothing aggressive about it.
In fact, the reason Gardena PD opposed release of the video was to prevent the public from making their own judgment of the police actions. They take the attitude that we should just TRUST their own internal procedures for evaluating police conduct and whether it was appropriate in a given situation. That's why we've seen such vociferous protests about the lack of accountability. It may be true that only a fraction of officers have committed crimes, but the number of civil rights violations is legion. Law enforcement has to quit acting as if their obligation to abide by the constitution is inconvenient for them and their purposes.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2015 - 01:45pm PT
|
Why was that kid ignoring the request of the officers by repeatedly moving his hands down to his pockets (right arm not in the line of sight)?
Seems like a very bad decision, one that the MAJORITY of people would not have made.
Now he is dead.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!