So, what you're saying is that Dotard's rally is going to be a funeral for his presidency? I'd be tempted to show up to celebrate that. But I would not attend either. From what I've heard, Dotard's super spreader rally is going to pack 1 million people into a venue with a 19k capacity. At least those funeral goers are wearing masks.
I thought those people attended to send a message of support. I didn't know they knew George personally. But what does Joe Biden and Al Sharpton being close personal friends with George Floyd have to do with Dotard's super-spreader rally??
Dotard was fishing for White Nationalist votes by making the location of peaceful BLM protests a "battlespace" and by announcing his rally was being held on Juneteenth. btw, holding rallies is not part of the president's job description. So, he's wasting massive amounts of time flying around the country at taxpayer expense to fish for votes. Something no president before him has done.
Will you be attending Dotard's super-spreader White Nationalist get out the racist vote and stroke the Orange Turd's fragile ego rally?
Please. Clearing the plaza was a shot across the radical WHITE communist Lefts bow, an unforgivable act of disrespect. All we need now are a few thousand more. They're ego's have made them believe that they are popular. Trump will soon demonstrate to them just how wrong they are.
Please. The American people are on the side of BLM. As admitted by Tucker Carlson. And protesting against police brutality and systemic racism has nothing to do with Communism.
The voters will demonstrate in November just how sick they are of your White Nationalist predisent's strategy of amping up the hate. In addition to how sick they are of Dotard's extreme bungling of the coronavirus pandemic and destruction of the economy. Dotard's incompetence is evident to all those who are thinking and non-brainwashed. Absent extreme cheating, Joe Biden will be our next president.
What police brutality? Thumping arrest resistors has been a police tradition for thousands of years. It's authorized State violence. Let lictors be lictors.
Your's are the kind of comments one would expect from a racist. The JOB of the police is to protect and serve. Not administer "thumpings". Change is coming. Although, for REAL change, the White Nationalist in the White House must first be removed.
I didn't say the police never have to use force. But it should be the minimal amount of force necessary to get the desired results. A "thumping" implies a beating that is unnecessary. Or the use of excessive force. Like applying a knee to a suspect's neck and sitting on (and compressing) their torso when they are already handcuffed and on the ground. Or shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back. You approve of brutality because you like the idea of giving the "criminals" a "thumping". Especially if they are black (as you said, they are more deserving).
Says the authoritarian fan. Unfortunately for democracy haters like you the US still operates under the Constitution.
Quote: The constitutional right to be protected from excessive force is found in the reasonable search and seizure requirement of the Fourth Amendment and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment.
'Excess" is one notch ABOVE 'superior' force. And you know those Greeks, Μηδὲν ἄγαν. And a thumping has never been "unusual" when applied to an arrest resistor. :)
The suspect ending up dead is a strong indication that the force used was excessive. Especially when the suspect is offering only passive unarmed resistance like George Floyd. Superior force is never needed. Only adequate force. And then only when talking doesn't work.
Compressing George Floyd's torso and kneeling on his neck wasn't required (adequate). It was excessive. And police brutality isn't something to laugh at. You'd stop laughing if you were on the receiving end of said brutality. Perhaps due to a case of mistaken identity. Unlikely, given that you're White, but it could happen. Or you might get caught engaging in some unlawful behavior along with your fellow White Nationalist Boogaloos.
That's right, you believe in subservience to authoritarian power. btw, I've never filmed the police, although I recognize the fact that it's lawful and that the guy (in the video I linked to) was wrongfully arrested.
It's illegal, in many places, to record others without their consent. In California, it's illegal to film a police officer on private property without his consent. So in the case of your video, the cameraman was violating the policeman's rights to consent to being taped once the officers entered upon his property. :)
From the SF Chronicle: Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to freely discuss our government, as well as the freedom of the press and right to public access to information. Now that cell phones and other compact filming devices are ubiquitous and social media has become a primary source for people to receive their information, “news” is increasingly gathered and disseminated by members of the public. Fittingly, courts have recognized this change and held that the freedom of the press also applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)
There are limits, however. In California, an individual may record an on-duty police officer, but may not do so surreptitiously (the camera must not be concealed or hidden). Under California Penal Code Section 647, audio recording, and potentially videotaping, a police officer with a concealed camera may constitute a misdemeanor. While openly recording an officer is legal, the conduct of others included in the audio and video may be protected. California Penal Code 632 makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the participants’ consent.
When filming the police, one must not interfere with the duties the officer is performing. It is not legal to interfere with those duties simply because one is recording. For example, an officer may need a reasonable amount of space to effectively detain a person. Even if one disagrees with the right of an officer to detain a person, it is not lawful to interfere with an arrest. If the officer is not impeded, it is entirely legal to record the officer.
Another important limitation to the right to film police is that it is lawful only on public areas such as streets, sidewalks, or other public lands. California has anti-stalking and “anti-paparazzi” laws which make it unlawful to record anyone on private property without consent. These laws also apply to off duty officers. To lawfully document a police officer, the officer must be in the performance of their duties and on public land.
While it is entirely legal for a person to film a police officer in California within these restrictions, it is important to use common sense. As you discovered, the right to film does not mean that the police will not confront a person who is filming them and ask them to stop. If this happens, it is best to remain calm and polite, and simply explain that you are exercising your First Amendment rights. It is always important to make sure the officer does not perceive a physical threat. If using a phone or small recording device such as a GoPro, have a colorful case or cover and never hold it in a manner that may allow it to be confused by an officer as a weapon. It is not advisable or legal to threaten an officer’s safety.
Like many states, video surveillance laws in Ohio need to be interpreted through its wiretapping statutes (Oh. Rev. Code 2933.51-2). Specifically, any unauthorized interception of an “oral communication” is prohibited. While there is no specific law against video surveillance, its usage as a means to intercept an “oral communication” (e.g. video recording at close range with an audio track) may be prosecutable as a criminal offense
...once the officers entered upon his property... they were trespassing.
Quote: According to the 8-1 ruling, a police officer must have a warrant not only to search your home, but also to enter your property. This means that the area around your home -- known as the curtilage -- is protected under the law from unreasonable search or unauthorized entry. [end quote]
Legal review says people have right to record police, Cleveland chief says. (excerpt) Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask said police in other parts of the country have had high-profile confrontations with people taping their actions and that the memo from McGrath was to provide clarification of what is allowed by law in Ohio. [end excerpt]
it is considered reasonable for a person (including a police officer) to walk from a public area to the obvious main entrance to the home using the most obvious path in order to "knock and talk" with a resident.
Legal review says people have right to record police, Cleveland chief says. (excerpt) Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask said police in other parts of the country have had high-profile confrontations with people taping their actions and that the memo from McGrath was to provide clarification of what is allowed by law in Ohio. [end excerpt]
39 comments:
So, what you're saying is that Dotard's rally is going to be a funeral for his presidency? I'd be tempted to show up to celebrate that. But I would not attend either. From what I've heard, Dotard's super spreader rally is going to pack 1 million people into a venue with a 19k capacity. At least those funeral goers are wearing masks.
Joe Biden knew George Floyd? Al Sharpton knew George Floyd? George really got around, didn't he? lol!
I thought those people attended to send a message of support. I didn't know they knew George personally. But what does Joe Biden and Al Sharpton being close personal friends with George Floyd have to do with Dotard's super-spreader rally??
Joe Biden wasn't fishing for Black votes? Who Knew.? This reminds me of Paul Wellstones send-off.
It's a shame that they couldn't delay the funeral until late October....
Did you attend the George Floyd Superspreeaders for Biden funeral and get out the Black vote rally?
Dotard was fishing for White Nationalist votes by making the location of peaceful BLM protests a "battlespace" and by announcing his rally was being held on Juneteenth. btw, holding rallies is not part of the president's job description. So, he's wasting massive amounts of time flying around the country at taxpayer expense to fish for votes. Something no president before him has done.
Will you be attending Dotard's super-spreader White Nationalist get out the racist vote and stroke the Orange Turd's fragile ego rally?
Please. Clearing the plaza was a shot across the radical WHITE communist Lefts bow, an unforgivable act of disrespect. All we need now are a few thousand more. They're ego's have made them believe that they are popular. Trump will soon demonstrate to them just how wrong they are.
Please. The American people are on the side of BLM. As admitted by Tucker Carlson. And protesting against police brutality and systemic racism has nothing to do with Communism.
The voters will demonstrate in November just how sick they are of your White Nationalist predisent's strategy of amping up the hate. In addition to how sick they are of Dotard's extreme bungling of the coronavirus pandemic and destruction of the economy. Dotard's incompetence is evident to all those who are thinking and non-brainwashed. Absent extreme cheating, Joe Biden will be our next president.
What police brutality? Thumping arrest resistors has been a police tradition for thousands of years. It's authorized State violence. Let lictors be lictors.
The American people just don't know how stupid BLM's backers really are.
It is, howerver, systemic racism that gets many black offenders thumped... but only because they're more "systemically" deserving of a thumping.
Your's are the kind of comments one would expect from a racist. The JOB of the police is to protect and serve. Not administer "thumpings". Change is coming. Although, for REAL change, the White Nationalist in the White House must first be removed.
You have an immaculate arrest gun that will prevent future thumpings? Why haven't you brought it to market?
Idiot.
I didn't say the police never have to use force. But it should be the minimal amount of force necessary to get the desired results. A "thumping" implies a beating that is unnecessary. Or the use of excessive force. Like applying a knee to a suspect's neck and sitting on (and compressing) their torso when they are already handcuffed and on the ground. Or shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in the back. You approve of brutality because you like the idea of giving the "criminals" a "thumping". Especially if they are black (as you said, they are more deserving).
All resistors deserve their thumpings. The Police represent SUPERIOR force, not MINIMUM force. :)
Says the authoritarian fan. Unfortunately for democracy haters like you the US still operates under the Constitution.
Quote: The constitutional right to be protected from excessive force is found in the reasonable search and seizure requirement of the Fourth Amendment and the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment.
'Excess" is one notch ABOVE 'superior' force. And you know those Greeks, Μηδὲν ἄγαν. And a thumping has never been "unusual" when applied to an arrest resistor. :)
The suspect ending up dead is a strong indication that the force used was excessive. Especially when the suspect is offering only passive unarmed resistance like George Floyd. Superior force is never needed. Only adequate force. And then only when talking doesn't work.
Adequate force is ALWAYS superior. lol!
Compressing George Floyd's torso and kneeling on his neck wasn't required (adequate). It was excessive. And police brutality isn't something to laugh at. You'd stop laughing if you were on the receiving end of said brutality. Perhaps due to a case of mistaken identity. Unlikely, given that you're White, but it could happen. Or you might get caught engaging in some unlawful behavior along with your fellow White Nationalist Boogaloos.
I would never be on the receiving end. I obey the lawful orders of police officers. :)
You could. If you disobey an unlawful order you could end up brutalized and arrested. Like this guy.
I'm not that stupid.
...unlike yourself.
That's right, you believe in subservience to authoritarian power. btw, I've never filmed the police, although I recognize the fact that it's lawful and that the guy (in the video I linked to) was wrongfully arrested.
It's illegal, in many places, to record others without their consent. In California, it's illegal to film a police officer on private property without his consent. So in the case of your video, the cameraman was violating the policeman's rights to consent to being taped once the officers entered upon his property. :)
From the SF Chronicle: Inherent in the First Amendment is the right to freely discuss our government, as well as the freedom of the press and right to public access to information. Now that cell phones and other compact filming devices are ubiquitous and social media has become a primary source for people to receive their information, “news” is increasingly gathered and disseminated by members of the public. Fittingly, courts have recognized this change and held that the freedom of the press also applies to citizen journalists and documentarians just as it does to formal members of the press. (Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).)
There are limits, however. In California, an individual may record an on-duty police officer, but may not do so surreptitiously (the camera must not be concealed or hidden). Under California Penal Code Section 647, audio recording, and potentially videotaping, a police officer with a concealed camera may constitute a misdemeanor. While openly recording an officer is legal, the conduct of others included in the audio and video may be protected. California Penal Code 632 makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication, including a private conversation or telephone call, without the participants’ consent.
When filming the police, one must not interfere with the duties the officer is performing. It is not legal to interfere with those duties simply because one is recording. For example, an officer may need a reasonable amount of space to effectively detain a person. Even if one disagrees with the right of an officer to detain a person, it is not lawful to interfere with an arrest. If the officer is not impeded, it is entirely legal to record the officer.
Another important limitation to the right to film police is that it is lawful only on public areas such as streets, sidewalks, or other public lands. California has anti-stalking and “anti-paparazzi” laws which make it unlawful to record anyone on private property without consent. These laws also apply to off duty officers. To lawfully document a police officer, the officer must be in the performance of their duties and on public land.
While it is entirely legal for a person to film a police officer in California within these restrictions, it is important to use common sense. As you discovered, the right to film does not mean that the police will not confront a person who is filming them and ask them to stop. If this happens, it is best to remain calm and polite, and simply explain that you are exercising your First Amendment rights. It is always important to make sure the officer does not perceive a physical threat. If using a phone or small recording device such as a GoPro, have a colorful case or cover and never hold it in a manner that may allow it to be confused by an officer as a weapon. It is not advisable or legal to threaten an officer’s safety.
btw - You guy was in Columbus, Ohio...
Like many states, video surveillance laws in Ohio need to be interpreted through its wiretapping statutes (Oh. Rev. Code 2933.51-2). Specifically, any unauthorized interception of an “oral communication” is prohibited. While there is no specific law against video surveillance, its usage as a means to intercept an “oral communication” (e.g. video recording at close range with an audio track) may be prosecutable as a criminal offense
...once the officers entered upon his property... they were trespassing.
Quote: According to the 8-1 ruling, a police officer must have a warrant not only to search your home, but also to enter your property. This means that the area around your home -- known as the curtilage -- is protected under the law from unreasonable search or unauthorized entry. [end quote]
Legal review says people have right to record police, Cleveland chief says. (excerpt) Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask said police in other parts of the country have had high-profile confrontations with people taping their actions and that the memo from McGrath was to provide clarification of what is allowed by law in Ohio. [end excerpt]
it is considered reasonable for a person (including a police officer) to walk from a public area to the obvious main entrance to the home using the most obvious path in order to "knock and talk" with a resident.
All the guy needed was a good thumping.
Legal review says people have right to record police, Cleveland chief says. (excerpt) Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask said police in other parts of the country have had high-profile confrontations with people taping their actions and that the memo from McGrath was to provide clarification of what is allowed by law in Ohio. [end excerpt]
lol! Only with the exceptions cited.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
NO.
Republican convention in Florida cancelled. MUST be because the CDC is about to declare the pandemic is over.
YES!
Post a Comment