owned by the gastapo LOL

dupe

^Not a dupe, as far as I can tell. Schmawy posted this video a month ago:

Two things. If the law has a problem with the audio component of the recording, then why does the news blur the cop's face but leave his voice in? And more importantly, how is this law justified?

Plain clothed officer busts out of an unmarked car with guns blazing on a busy street? How is that legal?

Yeah I don't get this at all. We have a lot of silly laws that people are being punished for...and they just shouldn't exist and people shouldn't be required to know that silly laws exist.

So there's a camera very obviously on top of the helmet? Could you imagine if a journalist with cameraman on the street was arrested because a passer by didn't know his conversation was being recorded? Well duh...

The first amendment protects freedom of the press. This includes cameras in public areas. You don't have to be CNN or NY Times to exercise this freedom. You are the press. These bureaucrats are in violation of the first amendment.

Here's why cops should not do this.



This is a type of shooting technique that is taught at advanced shooting classes. Given the circumstances of the officer, he could have easily been shot, and it is arguable that the officer would not have had a chance to fire his weapon given the placement of his gun.

If they believed the man was a threat they should have blocked his path and then used the PA system that patrol cars come with to order the man off of the bike.

If the biker had run they could have taken his plate numbers and then showed up at his abode later. It's an unsafe, bogus policy that plainclothes cops can use their authority to issue citations.

I could see them using it to protect the identities of plainsclothes or undercover police, but then again these same individuals would not be pulling their car into the pathway of other other vehicles and getting out gun in hand......since it kind of makes it hard not to notice them.

I suspect that they want the audio taken out of the video and it destroyed......so that when that guy decides to countersue for extreme and dangerous action being taken to stop a speeder...there won't be multiple seconds of an armed individual on there not identifying himself as police as he bears down on his unsuspecting victim.

I have never seen an unmarked vehicle pull someone over in that way, and usually they have hidden red and blues on the vehicle they can use....which he did not. If the marked car was there, there was no need for armed assailant to leave his vehicle to begin with. Marked car could have easily flipped on his lights and pulled the guy over.

I suspect plain clothes got a little road rage from motorcycle dude, and decided to vent it off in a spectacular "bust". After he calmed down, he realized he might be in real trouble if motorcycle dude or marked car officer decides he acted in an extreme and unsafe manner. I think the video proves this.

Lot of scummy police out there, they can film you with their dash cam (WITH AUDIO!)...I don't see why you can't film them in return.

And as for dude rolling his motorcycle back away from car who just cut into his path? I would have reversed my vehicle if it looked like some dude was trying to box me in or cause problems as well. It's a natural reaction to try to avoid collisions, and dude cutting across your path isn't showing the best judgment (Read: Whack job)...and then he gets out of the vehicle with a gun (Read: Armed Whack Job). He should be scared because I don't think I would have given armed whack job a chance to identify himself when he's already got the gun in his hand. Because that dude looks like he's got a bad case of road rage doing what he did there.

Outrageous and shameful. Why the hell would it be against the law to film police, let alone anyone in a public place? How does that protect anyone besides police who have something to hide?

That stupid-ass cop is lucky that nothing happened to him in the 5 seconds before he identified himself while brandishing a gun.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Plain clothed officer busts out of an unmarked car with guns blazing on a busy street? How is that legal?


Come on, he didn't even point the weapon let alone get out with 'guns blazing'.

That said, it was a poorly-conducted stop and the recording charge is simply outrageous. Hopefully any half-competent judge throw it out. The police are doing it purely because he made them look bad by going public with the video.

To be fair the biker was riding like a dick as well.

This is old news, this happened right after the video itself took place.

I recommend everybody watching this video follows the link Here and reading the comments.

Most of your rabbling about the officer being a bad cop has already been addressed.

As for the video being pulled, it's most likely to protect the actual officers identity. Believe it or not, cops DO infiltrate things like biker gangs, or criminal outfits, and having his face plastered over the internet is potentially lethal to the officer, should his cover be blown.

The police DON'T have anything to hide, watch the video in the link above. The stop was completed perfectly. The biker can say what he wants.. read burds comments in the link above, he knew there was a cop behind him, he even looks right at the cruiser before he's forced to stop.

The plain clothes officer gets out of his car, never raises his gun towards the biker, once he's off the bike, he puts the gun back away, still having never pointed it at the biker, and actually guides him off the side of the road.

Edit: One final note, and a recap of a comment I posted in the link above.

Unmarked cars have lights built into the grill, and the dashboard in front of the passenger seat of their car. You don't get a chance to see the grill or passenger dash in this video.

I haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate copppppppppppps!

In Maryland it is illegal to record a phone conversation without both parties being notified. This could be an extension of that law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States

There may be an exception when it is obvious that someone is being recorded (like staring into a helmet cam), but that will be decided in court. Also, there could be a difference between recording something for evidence as opposed to releasing it to the rest of the world on YouTube.

Yea darn... too bad thats illegal but its legal for the govt to wiretap the public's phones without notice.

>> ^ToKeyMonsTeR:

Yea darn... too bad thats illegal but its legal for the govt to wiretap the public's phones without notice.


From Wiki:

In the United States, federal agencies may be authorized to engage in wiretaps by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, in certain circumstances.

Under United States federal law and most state laws, there is nothing illegal about one of the parties to a telephone call recording the conversation, or giving permission for calls to be recorded or permitting their telephone line to be tapped. However the telephone recording laws in most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while 12 states require both parties to be aware. It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.

Essentially, they need to notify one side of the conversation that they're listening in on their phone calls, or both, unless they've got a court warrent.

This is situation is absurd. There shouldn't be any plainclothes police officers pointing guns at people without first proving that they're police. If a police officer who pulls a gun on you has no uniform or badge to prove they're not just some civilian trying to attack/rob somebody, anything you do in self defense should be treated by the law as if they really were just some civilian trying to attack/rob you.

In this particular case there was a real police car behind the motorcycle, which makes the cop's actions OK since you wouldn't expect someone to impersonate a police officer right in front of a real police officer.

Surveillance is part of the balance of power between a government and its citizens. The harder it is for citizens to spy on the government, and the easier it is for the government to spy on citizens, the more likely tyranny will occur. Covert investigative journalism -- like what occurred with the Pentagon papers and Watergate -- is indispensable to democracy.

>> ^Shepppard:
Essentially, they need to notify one side of the conversation that they're listening in on their phone calls, or both, unless they've got a court warrent.

Oh, and that stopped them did it?

^Stopped who from what?

If you're talking about police listening in on your phone calls, it's pointless. Unless they had a warrent from the courts to listen in without your permission, then the evidence is in-admissable, and you can counter-sue for invasion of privacy.

However.. what the hell ARE you talking about?