Porc 411: SPCA and Police en route to home in Candia NH

[DigitalWarrior]

What is most disgusting to me is not the fact that the law exists (Though I am not happy with the law), but the awful coercive manner in which the public servants began to demand consent and the detaining and transporting to a distant location of a man for the act of audio recording a public servant in his official acts in public.  The man with the camera had no right to privacy in his communication with the officer.  In my mind, that means the officer should not either. 

That law needs to be rewritten.

[KBCraig]

I'd like to discuss the economic rent. Horses in the pasture MUST pay the rent on the common resource ie. the ground they occupy, thus preventing others from using this commodity.

*gigglesnort*gag*cough*... oh, lawsy!

+1!

[BillKauffman]

What is most disgusting to me is not the fact that the law exists (Though I am not happy with the law), but the awful coercive manner in which the public servants began to demand consent and the detaining and transporting to a distant location of a man for the act of audio recording a public servant in his official acts in public.  The man with the camera had no right to privacy in his communication with the officer.  In my mind, that means the officer should not either. 

That law needs to be rewritten.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It should fully be in our rights to be videotaping the actions and voice of a public officer while standing on our own private property when we inform them we are doing so (not concealed).

[Josh]

What is most disgusting to me is not the fact that the law exists (Though I am not happy with the law), but the awful coercive manner in which the public servants began to demand consent and the detaining and transporting to a distant location of a man for the act of audio recording a public servant in his official acts in public.  The man with the camera had no right to privacy in his communication with the officer.  In my mind, that means the officer should not either. 

That law needs to be rewritten.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It should fully be in our rights to be videotaping the actions and voice of a public officer while standing on our own private property when we inform them we are doing so (not concealed).

It IS within our rights to do it, with or without their knowledge. We just need to prevent them from trying to enforce otherwise.

[BillKauffman]

What is most disgusting to me is not the fact that the law exists (Though I am not happy with the law), but the awful coercive manner in which the public servants began to demand consent and the detaining and transporting to a distant location of a man for the act of audio recording a public servant in his official acts in public.  The man with the camera had no right to privacy in his communication with the officer.  In my mind, that means the officer should not either. 

That law needs to be rewritten.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It should fully be in our rights to be videotaping the actions and voice of a public officer while standing on our own private property when we inform them we are doing so (not concealed).

It IS within our rights to do it, with or without their knowledge. We just need to prevent them from trying to enforce otherwise.

I thought there was a recent case in Nashua where a guy caught a law enforcement officer on a concealed camera doing something wrong but wasn't able to use it in court even though he had a sign up.

Does anyone know what I am referring to?

[Josh]

Their "rules" may not provide for it, but they have no place telling you what you can and can not do with a video camera on your own property. Anyone that doesn't like it is free to leave.

[dalebert]

I thought there was a recent case in Nashua where a guy caught a law enforcement officer on a concealed camera doing something wrong but wasn't able to use it in court even though he had a sign up.

Does anyone know what I am referring to?

I don't know what you're referring to but it wouldn't surprise me. My understanding of the law has to do with what can actually be used as evidence in court. I don't think it matters as far as other uses of the recording, like YouTube and the "court" of public opinion.

[neggy]

Somewhere in this thread I posted info on the Nashua case. The cops show up looking for the homeowners kid for questioning. There are security cameras in plain sight and posted. The cops were dicks, and the guy goes to the station to file a complaint, and in the process states he has video. He is arrested. No charges were brought because Nashua OD could not prove a crime had occurred by his taping. In the end he walked BUT the cops would not give him back the video.

[BillKauffman]

Somewhere in this thread I posted info on the Nashua case. The cops show up looking for the homeowners kid for questioning. There are security cameras in plain sight and posted. The cops were dicks, and the guy goes to the station to file a complaint, and in the process states he has video. He is arrested. No charges were brought because Nashua OD could not prove a crime had occurred by his taping. In the end he walked BUT the cops would not give him back the video.

That's it. Thanks.

So while on your property, do you have to either post or inform someone verbally that you are filming w/audio and ask their permission?

[doobie]

Somewhere in this thread I posted info on the Nashua case. The cops show up looking for the homeowners kid for questioning. There are security cameras in plain sight and posted. The cops were dicks, and the guy goes to the station to file a complaint, and in the process states he has video. He is arrested. No charges were brought because Nashua OD could not prove a crime had occurred by his taping. In the end he walked BUT the cops would not give him back the video.

Always make a copy before providing one.  Also, AFAIK, videotaping with no audio is NOT illegal.  Audio recording without consent is, currently.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

I'd like to discuss the economic rent. Horses in the pasture MUST pay the rent on the common resource ie. the ground they occupy, thus preventing others from using this commodity.

In addition, even though many consider us trolls, kola, Bill Kauffman who is and I demand to know the details of the criminal conspiracy. You HAVE to answer our probing questions. Some may consider them intrusive, inconsiderate, or even down right rude. But, under the code of conduct dictated by pajama clad forum denizens, you MUST answer all inquiries in detail. We have the right to cross examine you at length.

Now some of you may think that just because we never seem to provide any actual support, help, or entertainment value that benefits the efforts of this little part of the internet, that we don't have the AUTHORITY TO DEMAND this COMPLIANCE, however you are REQUIRED TO SUBMIT to our cross examination whenever we deem it necessary.

Thanks for your VOLUNTARY COOPERATION in this matter.

I can feel the karma coming our way.


Thank you, I'll be here all week.

This was the funniest damn thing I've seen in awhile. Thank you.

[DigitalWarrior]

What is most disgusting to me is not the fact that the law exists (Though I am not happy with the law), but the awful coercive manner in which the public servants began to demand consent and the detaining and transporting to a distant location of a man for the act of audio recording a public servant in his official acts in public.  The man with the camera had no right to privacy in his communication with the officer.  In my mind, that means the officer should not either. 

That law needs to be rewritten.

I wholeheartedly agree!

It should fully be in our rights to be videotaping the actions and voice of a public officer while standing on our own private property when we inform them we are doing so (not concealed).

It IS within our rights to do it, with or without their knowledge. We just need to prevent them from trying to enforce otherwise.

I thought there was a recent case in Nashua where a guy caught a law enforcement officer on a concealed camera doing something wrong but wasn't able to use it in court even though he had a sign up.

Does anyone know what I am referring to?

I am actually advocating a change in the law such that no notification has to be given to a public official who is acting in the performance of his duty.  I would love it if the [police|code enforcers|SPCA volunteers|crossing guards] never knew if they were being recorded.  They should always be acting in a civil and courteous manner.  Doing otherwise is a betrayal of the trust they have been given.

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

Follow Up, No charges pressed, Complaint against detective was justified
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060805/NEWS01/108050086

[BillKauffman]

I am actually advocating a change in the law such that no notification has to be given to a public official who is acting in the performance of his duty.  I would love it if public officials in carrying out their official duties* never knew if they were being recorded.  They should always be acting in a civil and courteous manner.  Doing otherwise is a betrayal of the trust they have been given.

I couldn't agree more.

*substituted language to be clearer.

[grasshopper]

 Allrite, I believe the state trooper flying aroundin their homeland security planes might have reported on this subject.
  Why?  I believe it might have been here,or,Militeryfirearms.co, where a bunch of friends were shooting their bows in Washington State somewhere and a HSD plane flew over and reported bow hunters in the woods not in deer season. The pigs called the local police and game wardens and tried to press charges.
  The air is where the fachists are looking from.
   No really!  I'm not nutbag, (well sometimes I ::)am).

[Lloyd Danforth]

In my year in Grafton, I think I have seen one small plane in the sky.