Posted on 06/15/2007 10:11:34 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
For whom, your police department and the prosecutor?
I'd be retaining some top gun defense attorney here.
The arrogance of government authority here is punitive.
“Who watches ‘The Watchers’ ?”
Indeed.
Because they said so. And you'll stop asking questions, if you know what's good for you.
/
Then there's no need to file charges, is there.
where is the ACLU on this?
......Crickets Chirping
“The law technically bans the intentional recording of any oral conversation without permission.”
What law? Is that a federal law? A state law? Some sort of municipal ordinance? Really. Does anyone know?
Thi is outrageous and the kid should fight it. I can’t imagine that there is any law he broke.
They thought they could BS a kid into pleading to a lesser charge ?!?!?!?
What was the “lesser: charge ?!?!?!?
Well this has got my knickers in a nice tight bunch this afternoon............daaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmm !
The intent is pretty clear. The government intends to maintain a police state.
If I were the kid's attorney, I'd demand exactly these words in the public apology.
Personal possession - e.g. AR-15s.
Alarming story of video charges.
bump
Bump for later reading, hard to believe it’s a felony.
If there is freedom of speech, then is there not also freedom to hear speech? And does that freedom not extend to making accurate records of such speech?
And are the actions of the police not truly expressions of their policies? Is one not allowed to take notes during such a stop? It is only the arrogance of police which allows them to place their own actions outside of the observing powers of the public.
You're not really suggesting that it would be Constitutional to bar NBC from ever filming a police activity, are you? How would NBC's protection not apply to other law-abiding citizens?
Sounds like the Military Police that I have run into. Why not let our local police have the same powers over us that the military exercise over our soldiers.
Especially troubling is the "presumption of innocence". That one gets in the way all the time. Let the accused prove that they are innocent. Saves a lot of resources and simplifies police training.
No there is no freedom to hear speech. You don’t get to tap my phone less I let you. I think you and I agree on MANY issues, but I’m not sure you have a good argument here with “freedom of speech.” Do I believe that citizens should be able to record audio and video of our public servants in action? Yep. Sounds to me like the police get to collect evidence, and we citizens get the shaft.
Don’t you all see? Its for the public good! This fine, upstanding officer was engaged in his lawful revenue raising duties, and must not be disturbed or videotaped shaking down a citizen in the name of the State!
I view this as the same as ‘suspicionless’ searches. “Well, if you aren’t breaking any laws, whats the problem?” Ask that grandmother in Atlanta that was gunned down by thugs in the name of a safe State. Broke into her house unlawfully, and then gunned her down when she resisted. And when they didn’t find anything, they planted a small amount of pot in the house.
Ask yourself why these officers were carrying a small amount of drugs on their person during a raid...
And then ask yourself how often does it occur across the country.
In the meantime and innocent teenage boy sits in a prison and his mom has to go through financial turmoil and remortgage her home to get the poor innocent lad out?
What has happened to our country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.