Police find innovative solution to citizen complaint

[solypsist]

"Michael Gannon stands outside his house on Morgan Street where he videotaped a detective who had come to his house investigating his 15-year-old son Tuesday in Nashua. Gannon said the detective was rude, and brought a surveillance tape to the Nashua Police Station to file a complaint. Instead, police arrested him, telling him he had violated New Hampshire’s eavesdropping and wiretap laws."

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121

Hope the guy only gave the cops a copy of the tape, not the original. The bad news is that the guy may actually ger prison time: Due to the Rodney King incident many states have altered wiretapping laws to include civies videotaping police activity. In Florida you can get 5 years for knowingly recording police activities on a security camera. 5 more years if the tape has audio. Police do not want to be recorded if/when they violate your rights.

[rory_20_uk]

God Bless America - Land Of The Free :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

In Florida you can get 5 years for knowingly recording police activities on a security camera. 5 more years if the tape has audio.

Hmm. You'd almost think the police had something to hide?

[Silver Rusher]

They do.

[doc_bean]

Why does he hate freedom ?

[Oaty]

Would be such a shame to see an officer in distress, but since it's a police activity you just have to turn the camera off.

Edit:


Hope the guy only gave the cops a copy of the tape, not the original..

Well the funny thing is they can't destroy the tape as that'd be tampering with evidence and then they'd have no evidence to file charges on him. Of course it may magically dissappear and charges won't be able to be brought up

[Big_John]

What the hell? I should have the to right video-tape a cop when what he is doing directly concerns me.as per the doc, why do you hate freedom?

[Oaty]

What the hell? I should have the to right video-tape a cop when what he is doing directly concerns me.


Welcome to the Unionised Socialists of America

[Csargo]

Why does he hate freedom ?

Thats what I was thinking.

[Aenlic]

This is just insane. That wiretapping law won't stand long if it's challenged all the way to the Supreme Court. Er... well, to a Supreme Court other than one stacked by Constitutionally challenged people like the Bushistas.

Does this mean you can be arrested for videotaping the crowd at a public event? Does the news media need to worry that they might accidentally videotape a police officer, if they cover a game and pan over the audience accidentally catching a cop picking his nose? Will fans at Dartmouth sports games be arrested for videotaping and catching a cop in the frame?

Absolutely insane, and utterly unconstitutional. This country has just gone completely nuts in the last few years. Just when you think the people can't get their heads any further up their digestive tracts, they go and take yoga classes in stretching. :wall:

[PanzerJaeger]

The citizenry elects those who make the laws, and if they feel those laws are untenable, they can elect others to change them.

[rory_20_uk]

Sadly in many, many cases the rules help those in power.

Hence who so often the opposition lambasts the government of the day for a policy, then quietly forgets about it when they get to power.

What governor wants their police viewed too closely? If someone else has passed the legislation, so much the better.

And even if a person is elected stating that s/he'll repeal a certain law, there's no gaurantee.

~:smoking:

[barocca]

Just when you think the people can't get their heads any further up their digestive tracts, they go and take yoga classes in stretching. :wall:

an absolute classic,

but,
why do you hate freedom?

such laws were enacted to protect your freedom...weren't they???

perhaps America's anthem needs to be changed
"...the land of the not-so-free and the home of the government slaves."
B.

[Aenlic]

:laugh4:

Yes, I'm a freedom hater. I admit it. I hate it so much I ended up an anarchist. My list of those first up against the wall when the revolution comes grows daily. (To misquote the late Douglas Adams). :wink:

(By the way, thanks for the headsup on the two custom folders, I think I love you, Barocca!)

[Louis VI the Fat]

The bad news is that the guy may actually get prison time.Prison time only? I'd say he's lucky to have left alive after trying to file a complaint. (http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_033170755.html)

'One more step forward, and you'll see what happens. Take one more step forward...'

[Csargo]

:laugh4:

Yes, I'm a freedom hater.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM????????????????//

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

You should be ashamed

Have a nice day :laugh4:

[Aenlic]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOO

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM????????????????//

WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

You should be ashamed

Have a nice day :laugh4:

Pfft. Read the whole paragraph. Don't take portions out of context. :wink:

[Aenlic]

Sorry to spam the thread; but I just focused on this post.


Welcome to the Unionised Socialists of America

The above is perhaps even more appalling than the law against videotaping the police; and much more insidious. In fact, a case could be made that sentiments such as this are the reason why the powers-that-be feel that they can get away with such laws. Luckily, I'm nearly speechless with shock at the quote or I'd launch into one of my typically verbose and pedantic diatribes. Consider yourselves lucky! :wink:

[AntiochusIII]

Having read the article, I think this is one f'd up case. Even if all those shoddy charges are true the behavior of the "police" is nothing less than harassment.

It smells of police corruption: purge the a-holes!

Free America my arse.

[Husar]

Well, maybe it´s better to go directly to a lawyer and sue the hell out of them?:inquisitive:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Er... well, to a Supreme Court other than one stacked by Constitutionally challenged people like the Bushistas.

Hello, this is reality. Perhaps you should find out which justices approved Kelo v New London before saying which judges are constitutionally challenged.

As for the article...


Police reported that Gannon “has a history of being verbally abusive” toward police
Heaven forbid he doesn't praise them! Into the slammer with him!

EDIT; I bet those poor cops in Tennesee would have like this law. That awful woman, recording them while they tortured her husband. And Louis, that's a lovely video isn't it?

Crazed Rabbit

[Aenlic]

Hello, this is reality. Perhaps you should find out which justices approved Kelo v New London before saying which judges are constitutionally challenged.

Kelo was an abomination, agreed. Must've been something in the coffee that day. It happens. Sometimes the justices do things which one wouldn't expect. For example in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Scalia actually wrote an opinion stating that the Bush Administration had over-stepped its authority. In that decision, only Thomas agreed with the government's position. :wink:

Interestingly, it seems to have had exactly the opposite effect than predicted. Many banks are now refusing to give out loans to developers who use the eminent domain to acquire private land; and one city in California actually voted to use eminent domain to take property that Walmart was planning on using to build a store, basing the taking on the argument that the Walmart would hurt the local Mom & Pop store economy, and thus staying exactly within the SCOTUS decision in Kelo. Rather amusing. :laugh4:

And of couse, all of the justices, voting unanimously, upheld the right of a native church to use Federally prohibited peyote in their ceremonies. That one was a shock; though certainly not unwarranted. :grin:

[KrooK]

lol looks like you are living into
Union of Soviet America

[doc_bean]

Welcome to the Unionised Socialists of America

Funny thing, **** like this is far less likely to happen in 'socialised' Europe. Focus on the real problem, why don't ya ?

EDIT: can I use the s word here ?

[AntiochusIII]

Union of Soviet America

Unionised Socialists of AmericaIt's rather sad, if not as sad as the issue at hand in the article, that some people could swallow propaganda so easily and use labels they do not understand to attack a behavior completely unrelated to that particular label.

A soviet is a council in Russian. In the historical perspective, massive amount of soviets rose quickly in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Tsars: factory workers--and later, soldiers--were among the most "politically experienced" classes in Russia with a long history of agitation, therefore, when the Tsars were removed, the workers--spontaneously, as opposed to a nationally-directed effort--establish their own soviets--councils--based on their factories, to voice their opinions, to vote on issues, and later, when the Petrograd soviet managed to gain far greater influence than it was supposed to, to be exploited by Bolshevik activists as a means for the coup of the October Revolution. The use of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a name for the new Russian Bolshevik state that arise out of the Revolution is simply Bolshevik propaganda. It's their attempt to imply that they, and not, say, the Mensheviks, or the anarcho-syndicalists, or the Western Democracies, or anyone else, represent the proletariat and the People as a whole. Needless to say, the Bolsheviks subvert the original soviet movement and twisted them into functions of the state, as opposed to "grassroots Democracy" that the soviets began their lives as.

Of course, the swift evolvement of the "soviet movement" in the early times of the Revolution begs a far more complex explanation than that.

Therefore, to attempt to put "soviet" into the name of the United States as an indication of government--police--tyranny displays a lack of understanding on the actual concept of soviets in Russian history.

Of the same case is the use of "socialists," and that is even worse: socialism is an economic model, not a political model. This misunderstanding is most aggravating especially when the user of such labels express what is essentially propaganda that lasted from the legacy of the Cold War, and earlier. The wording also indicate something of a hatred for Trade Unions ("Unionized"), which of course bears no relevance to the case; but I must assume that it isn't a conscious choice.

I much despise this most ugly case of police harassment which seems to me essentially a criminal "gang" behavior. But to name it socialist, or communist, as "soviets" implied, is rather naive. A cheap shot.

[Aenlic]

A soviet is a council in Russian. In the historical perspective, massive amount of soviets rose quickly in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Tsars: factory workers--and later, soldiers--were among the most "politically experienced" classes in Russia with a long history of agitation, therefore, when the Tsars were removed, the workers--spontaneously, as opposed to a nationally-directed effort--establish their own soviets--councils--based on their factories, to voice their opinions, to vote on issues, and later, when the Petrograd soviet managed to gain far greater influence than it was supposed to, to be exploited by Bolshevik activists as a means for the coup of the October Revolution. The use of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a name for the new Russian Bolshevik state that arise out of the Revolution is simply Bolshevik propaganda. It's their attempt to imply that they, and not, say, the Mensheviks, or the anarcho-syndicalists, or the Western Democracies, or anyone else, represent the proletariat and the People as a whole. Needless to say, the Bolsheviks subvert the original soviet movement and twisted them into functions of the state, as opposed to "grassroots Democracy" that the soviets began their lives as.

Wow. I've encountered so few other people who know this stuff that I'd given up hope that anyone ever picked up a book beyond what they were required to read in schools. Impressive. If you also know who Nestor Makhno was, I'm going to have to ask you to marry me, and I'm not even gay. :grin:

[AntiochusIII]

Wow. I've encountered so few other people who know this stuff that I'd given up hope that anyone ever picked up a book beyond what they were required to read in schools. Impressive. If you also know who Nestor Makhno was, I'm going to have to ask you to marry me, and I'm not even gay. :grin:The legendary (for me :P) Ukrainian anarchist revolutionary?

Right? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

This is from memory. So now I'm going to check it at wiki...

Edit: Oooh! I'm right! I'm right!

Edit 2: his politics are interesting, to say the least. Though admittedly it is too idealistic as he take no account of the human folly, or the Bolsheviks' determination. Then again, that's for just about every anarchists there ever were.

And I don't think you can propose, good sir, for I'm, err...married to England? ~;)

Anyway, those are OT stuff.

[Aenlic]

The legendary (for me :P) Ukrainian anarchist revolutionary?

Right? Or am I confusing him with someone else?

This is from memory. So now I'm going to check it at wiki...

Edit: Oooh! I'm right! I'm right!

Edit 2: his politics are interesting, to say the least. Though admittedly it is too idealistic as he take no account of the human folly, or the Bolsheviks' determination. Then again, that's for just about every anarchists there ever were.

And I don't think you can propose, good sir, for I'm, err...married to England?~;)

He came very close to winning. By 1920, he had beaten back both the White Russians and the Bolsheviks on several occasions. If it hadn't been for a typhus outbreak eliminating half of the Makhnovist army, which Trotsky then managed - just barely - to take advantage of, he was close to kicking the last of the White Russians and also Trotsky's forces out of the Ukraine. And with the anti-Bolsheviks triumphant in the Ukraine, it might have encouraged more of the Central and Eastern soviets to fight back against the Bolsheviks as well. Lenin might have fallen, Stalin would never have taken power, and things would have been very much different today. Sadly, that is all just a what-if. But then, I'm one of those pie-in-the-sky dreamer utopian anarchists.


Anyway, those are OT stuff.

(whispering) Shhh, I won't tell if you don't. :laugh4:

Besides, someone might learn something! That's always a good thing. :2thumbsup:

[Husar]

Yeah, i was actually looking forward to the russian revolution in aschool, but it never appeared.:no:
Reading it up myself in book is impossible because of my nature.~;)

[Major Robert Dump]

This is unconstitutional. If he was on his own property or on public property there should be no crime. This is total BS and any city council or state who passes this law should be ashamed.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that most states and federal wiretap laws have a "resonable expectation to privacy" exemption, meaning that it is perfectly legal to tape someone who is conversing in an area where there is NOT a reasonable expectation to privacy. This includes conversations in public places, conversations in areas where several people are present, and conversations in areas where a warning is posted.

Furthermore, you could use the libel/slander definiton of "public figure" to apply to police officers, therefore the cops -- as public figures -- should expect less privacy and more scrutiny while operating in their official capacity.

This case will not stand. The DA is already backing down. What a bunch of arsehole cops

[orangat]

I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that most states and federal wiretap laws have a "resonable expectation to privacy" exemption, meaning that it is perfectly legal to tape someone who is conversing in an area where there is NOT a reasonable expectation to privacy. This includes conversations in public places, conversations in areas where several people are present, and conversations in areas where a warning is posted.
...........

I don't think the expectation of privacy applies in this case since the owner of the home was actually in the video itself. It wasn't like some clandestine filming of a police-only conversation. I think there is a general exemption of privacy when someone who is not hiding is recording something in his plain sight/hearing.