-doomed-
film is exciting
This.^^^^^
Woman Jailed After Filming Her Own Traffic Stop
- Thread starter noisycheese
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 10K
This.^^^^^
Particular
Disassembler, occasional reassembler
I may be a slow, but I don't see what politics has to do with this, other than that politics has something to do with everything if you want it to.
It OP's link is to a rightwing blog which quotes and links to a newspaper article which quotes someone from the ACLU. The blog conveniently replaces the allegedly 'left wing' legal analysis with their own 'constitution heavy language'. You can cherry pick all you like.
Btw, the thread title refers to filming, while as far as I can tell there was only audio recorded.
I think there was a disagreement about who knew the law better, but she was arrested for refusing to follow orders, not for recording. This just seems foolish on her part, even if she was right. The cop overreacted, and should take a course in conflict de-escalation.
The stubborn cop vs the self-righteous citizen. That just rarely ends well.
It OP's link is to a rightwing blog which quotes and links to a newspaper article which quotes someone from the ACLU. The blog conveniently replaces the allegedly 'left wing' legal analysis with their own 'constitution heavy language'. You can cherry pick all you like.
Btw, the thread title refers to filming, while as far as I can tell there was only audio recorded.
I think there was a disagreement about who knew the law better, but she was arrested for refusing to follow orders, not for recording. This just seems foolish on her part, even if she was right. The cop overreacted, and should take a course in conflict de-escalation.
The stubborn cop vs the self-righteous citizen. That just rarely ends well.
E__WOK
Well-known
She should've passively recorded the incident. Who's supposed to hold the phone while she is being cuffed?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An excellent summary, especially the highlight.
The idea of being "arrested for refusing to follow orders" strikes me as a somewhat chilling situation in an allegedly free country.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
Roger, there are actually two bodies of law that are in play here; the traffic code and the criminal code. The traffic code is much more restrictive on the citizen as a result of a licensee's subscription by accepting a driver's license. Parts of that code have administrative sanctions and parts have criminal sanctions. The traffic codes in the U.S. don't require the same level of proof as a criminal matter and certain presumptions are made through assent, as in the "implied consent" laws for blood alcohol testing.
The criminal code application, of course, requires probable cause. This case has an interesting mix of both. Unfortunately much of the public doesn't understand the difference.
One interesting application is that, for example, there is no duty to identify oneself in the U.S. even if one commits a criminal offense. You cannot be arrested solely for "failure to identify." The sole exception to that is a pedestrian or bicyclist (for whom licensure is not required) who commits a traffic offense. The vehicle code, because of the presumption of licensure, requires that one identify oneself for the purposes of being released on one's own recognizance with a written promise to appear (a traffic citation.) If the person commits a traffic offense, and fails to identify themselves to the satisfaction of the officer, a citation cannot be issued. The traffic code then requires a personal appearance before the magistrate. That, of course, involves an arrest and custody. If that seems an odd situation, it is.
redisburning
Well-known
as long as it's you guys supporting this cop who get beaten for recording the police, and not me, I'm cool.
well, or your kids, since most of you are twice my age.
well, or your kids, since most of you are twice my age.
newspaperguy
Well-known
IMO, this thread would be a prime candidate for the kill switch.
Maybe it's the weather?
Maybe it's the weather?
paulfish4570
Veteran
what if this had been you and your camera bag/backpack:
http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php/115997-Did-i-just-get-robbed-by-the-police
http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php/115997-Did-i-just-get-robbed-by-the-police
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Thanks for a superb and clear analysis. I had not considered the position of the pedestrian or bicyclist in a traffic violation; but then, it's very hard in the UK for a pedestrian to commit a traffic offence.
Historically the police are "civilians in uniform" and are required to be polite to their employers, i.e. the public. Alas I cannot find a reference but in the early days of the "Bobbies" or "Peelers" one policeman was fired for lack of civility; as I recall, failing to raise his hat to a washerwoman. On another occasion, for which again I cannot provide a reference, a judge said that the court was not obliged to give special weight to anyone's evidence, be they prostitute or policeman.
ANY extension of the powers of the police, or worse still ANY attempt on the part of the police to extend their own powers unlawfully, must be watched very carefully indeed. This is why I am constantly astonished at the slavish willingness of so many people to do everything a policeman tells them to do.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
That's why I think that the Patriot Act is so damaging. I'm all for doing what's necessary, but when government officials and employees begin to believe that the Constitution stands in the way of them doing their job rather than recognizing that the Constitution enables them to do their job, there are serious issues at hand.
One of the most troubling trends I see is the blind acceptance of the militarization of civil police organizations. There has been an interesting evolution of expectations of police organizations by the general public since 9/11. For the first time in the history of civil law enforcement (at least in the U.S.,) agencies are now expected to provide a paramilitary response to terrorist acts and "protect" the public from harm at the hands of terrorists. Interestingly, the government has no duty to protect any individual from the actions of another. We see image after image of unaffected and unconcerned civilians strolling through areas populated by heavily armed police officers in full military combat gear carrying military weaponry.
The challenge for law enforcement administrators is how to put officers out there who can switch roles between traditional civilian law-enforcer and this new role of paramilitary operations trooper without carrying the latter into the former in daily operations. I don't think that law enforcement administrators, over-all, are doing a very good job at keeping those roles separate.
felix5616
Established
Unfortunately more and more police officers are increasingly militarized and have come to view the public that they are supposed to be serving as the enemy. This country(USA) is barely a free society, i know its worse elsewhere but that is a lame excuse for what is occuring in the US.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Folks, what ever happened to the gal being arrested for recording her arrest that started this thread?
The rest of this thread is simple drama inducing troll material.
The rest of this thread is simple drama inducing troll material.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make them "criminals with a license." They're still pubic servants doing the job that the Legislature prescribes for them to the best of their ability. It's been knee-jerk reactions by legislators to public outcry that has gotten our laws so out of touch.
And there's no doubt that some of the posts have been less than accommodating of others' viewpoints, but the gist of the thread is about government over-reach. Of course, that always means over-reach by an individual, be he the President or a police officer on the street.
If folks think that problem exists, it's logical to discuss the extent and ramifications of that problem and how it came to be. It would be really pleasant though if we didn't have to endure name-calling.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
I believe what you've described is false equivalent.
I would note that much of this thread is filled with false equivalents.
For instance the current POTUS and administration had nothing to do with this particular Florida cop arresting this woman over the alleged traffic stop and her wanting to record the cop.
These false equivalents are complete troll fodder and should avoided in discussions like this, as they just let loose even more more troll fodder and name calling. You get the name calling because troll foddeering arguments tend to be either misinformed or dishonest arguments to start (and are outside the reach of the original discussion) with. Thus more useless troll fodder.
Seriously folks, every single one of us is better then this.
Don't let the inner troll in all of us get the better of us.
I would note that much of this thread is filled with false equivalents.
For instance the current POTUS and administration had nothing to do with this particular Florida cop arresting this woman over the alleged traffic stop and her wanting to record the cop.
These false equivalents are complete troll fodder and should avoided in discussions like this, as they just let loose even more more troll fodder and name calling. You get the name calling because troll foddeering arguments tend to be either misinformed or dishonest arguments to start (and are outside the reach of the original discussion) with. Thus more useless troll fodder.
Seriously folks, every single one of us is better then this.
Don't let the inner troll in all of us get the better of us.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Some forums have wisely found out that off topic material should be placed in an Off Topic area that does not get viewed as New Posts.
To me this has nothing to do with General Photography as we are not discussing anything at all related to photography. I have not heard one thing about composition, exposure, etc.
I think it would be wise to have an off topic area for threads like this where people who really want to duke it out on an internet forum have the cloak anonymity and can fight about their philosophies while not clouding the general forum's air space.
Although many of us view photography as right, i.e. freedom of expression, its clear than many view it as a privilege. To me, this is the basis of this never ending conflict.
I still think we should not let impassioned off topic debates unrelated to "General Photography" taint the front page of rangefinderforum... that's just my 2 cents.
If you want to argue about politics/religion go do it somewhere so we all don't have to hear how right other person is. Like an off topic area!!
To me this has nothing to do with General Photography as we are not discussing anything at all related to photography. I have not heard one thing about composition, exposure, etc.
I think it would be wise to have an off topic area for threads like this where people who really want to duke it out on an internet forum have the cloak anonymity and can fight about their philosophies while not clouding the general forum's air space.
Although many of us view photography as right, i.e. freedom of expression, its clear than many view it as a privilege. To me, this is the basis of this never ending conflict.
I still think we should not let impassioned off topic debates unrelated to "General Photography" taint the front page of rangefinderforum... that's just my 2 cents.
If you want to argue about politics/religion go do it somewhere so we all don't have to hear how right other person is. Like an off topic area!!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Possibly because there is more to photography than just "composition, exposure, etc." An example might be what we're ALLOWED to photograph.
Cheers,
R.
ferider
Veteran
Sorry, Roger: I don't see how a woman arrested for reckless driving or under suspicion of driving under the influence (only reasons why she could be arrested, afaik), and her having to stop audio recording due to hand-cuffs has anything to do with photography.
I second the request to move this into the Off Topic forum.
Thx.
I second the request to move this into the Off Topic forum.
Thx.
driver
Well-known
Polarizing , this thread is . . . .
Polarizing , this thread is . . . .
. . . Anger Clouds the Mind, Hatred Blurs the Vision - not good for photographers. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid gentlemen, everything is going according to plan.
I tried very much not to reply to this drivel. Weak, I am - Judge I am not...... ahh, wait . . . . crap,:bang: I'm no more enlightened than anyone else. Forget it.
Polarizing , this thread is . . . .
. . . Anger Clouds the Mind, Hatred Blurs the Vision - not good for photographers. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid gentlemen, everything is going according to plan.
I tried very much not to reply to this drivel. Weak, I am - Judge I am not...... ahh, wait . . . . crap,:bang: I'm no more enlightened than anyone else. Forget it.
JHutchins
Well-known
This baffles me. Much of the reaction to this thread baffles me, but this really baffles me. There are thousands of reasons why a person might be arrested, one of which is that a police officer acted improperly. This is neither impossible nor, unfortunately, improbable. I see no reason to assume that she was driving under the influence or recklessly especially when there is nothing at all out there to suggest she was.
I'm puzzled more generally by the strong reaction to this thread. It is simply not unheard of for people taking pictures of the police to be harassed by the police for doing so. There have been quite a few cases on this at this point -- Alvarez, which I linked to above is one in the 7th Circuit, Glik in the First Circuit is another: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf, as is Smith in the 11th Circuit (which Florida is a part of) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16398383335009435380&q=212+F.3d+1332&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22
In addition, the U.S. Justice Department has intervened in other cases on behalf of citizens asserting these rights against the police: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Sharp_SOI_1-10-12.pdf
As the court noted in Glik "We conclude, based on the facts alleged, that Glik was exercising clearly-established First Amendment rights in filming the officers in a public space, and that his clearly-established Fourth Amendment rights were violated by his arrest without probable cause."
As I said above, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a First Amendment right to photograph, film, or record police officers in the conduct of their official duties (providing that doing so doesn't actually interfere with those duties) and, because of that, no state has the power to enact any law that abridges that right and any law -- such as a wiretapping statute or two party consent statute -- can not constitutionally be enforced to prevent such filming or recording and police officers who arrest someone regardless are likely to find themselves on the losing end of a 42 U.S.C. s1983 lawsuit.
And this strikes me as highly relevant to photography because, as Roger Hicks notes, what we're allowed to photograph is part of photography and there is value in both knowing what we're allowed to photograph and making that more widely known; ideally widely enough known that people like officer O'Brien stop doing stupid things like the arrest at issue.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Shaddup and be a good little slave. Our all-knowing masters are the only ones who can tell us what to do, whether directly or through those who think our masters have the right idea.
Many years ago I photographed someone selling the Socialist Worker newspaper in Bristol city centre (I left Bristol in 1987). He was a sort of Central Casting Trotskyite (though I doubt that either he or Central Casting knew much about Trotsky). He got really bent out of shape and said (admittedly incoherently) "You have the right to ask me if you can take my picture!"
I replied, "True, but I chose not to exercise that right."
Moral: if you're going to try to scream "rights", find out what they are first. Better still, don't make a fool of yourself in public.
It seems that this case actually concerns audio recording and not photography. So? The basic principle is the same. We all accept that it is bad form to photograph someone unflatteringly, just because we can. If however we can photograph an alleged "public servant" being an arrogant [insert insult here] and thereafter bring their behaviour to the attention of their employers (the aforementioned public), then we are failing in our civil duty if we do not do so, .
The alternative is a slide into slavery, as I recommended to you at the beginning of my post. Submitting to slavery is easy at first, but hard in the long run. Freedom is often a lot more difficult at first, but generally much preferable in the long run.
Cheers,
R.
Similar threads
- Article
- Locked
