Tape the cops, go to jail.

[FTL_Ian]

Only one can actually harm you.

[d_goddard]

Only one can actually harm you.

You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower

[Lex]

Only one can actually harm you.

You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower

Such a vivid immagination you have my friend.

[FTL_Ian]

Only one can actually harm you.

You say that now, but wait till I get the video and audio of just how vigorously you clean your privates in the shower

You presume I would care.      Pay me enough, and I'll make you that video!

[Lex]

Sorry, but for the right amount I would too. 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'll pay not to see it.

[FTL_Ian]

Sounds like we have ourselves a bidding war!   

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Video+games%3a+Nashua+police+go+too+far&articleId=d63a4972-2bc2-40ca-a1d8-81527cc71d4c


Video games: Nashua police go too far

NASHUA POLICE arrested resident Michael Gannon when he presented them with what he said was videotaped evidence that two detectives treated his family rudely while investigating one of his sons for possible involvement in a burglary. The charge: recording the communications of the officers without their consent, which they allege is a crime in New Hampshire.

Gannon?s tape was the product of his security system. To deter crime, he has cameras on his property, along with signs alerting strangers they are being recorded. That system caught the police officers on tape, allegedly illegally since they say they did not consent to be recorded. Suppose Gannon arrived at the police station with a video of two intruders talking while breaking into his home. Would the police have arrested him for taping the criminals without their consent? We don?t think so.

The police are investigating the two officers? conduct, it is worth noting.

Legislators need to revisit the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. It is a good law in general, but exceptions need to be made. While it should remain illegal to, say, secretly record a tenant, one should be able to record on one?s own property government officials performing their official duties, and criminals.

We are not sure what point the Nashua police are trying to prove by charging Gannon, other than ?don?t mess with the police, buddy.? Imprisoning him for felony interception of oral communication will do nothing to protect the public, as Gannon?s only ?crime,? according to police, was having an operational home security system. But it sure will send the message that if you complain about police behavior in Nashua you can expect them to find a way to get you back.

[d_goddard]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Video+games%3a+Nashua+police+go+too+far&articleId=d63a4972-2bc2-40ca-a1d8-81527cc71d4c
[...]
Legislators need to revisit the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute. It is a good law in general, but exceptions need to be made. While it should remain illegal to, say, secretly record a tenant, one should be able to record on one?s own property government officials performing their official duties, and criminals.

I would be unsurprised if we someday discover that the Union Leader has folks looking on this forum. The Union Leader's editor was on CSPAN last year saying how glad he is the the FSP chose New Hampshire, and that he's looking forward to the influence we'll have on the state

Anyway, this editorial is a useful indication of the modd of the general public. It means we can expect support from the UL, at least, for the notion of surveiling your own property and -- very importantly -- the notion of recording public officials on public business in general, which would be a very powerful right to have, if we can secure it!

[Pat McCotter]

I like McQuaid's comment at the NHLA Liberty Dinner. (Paraphrasing) "The NHLA knows how to guarantee coverage in the paper - invite the president [of the paper] to be your keynote speaker."

[Christopher King]

And you can see the results on my blawg, and over in the Civil Disobedience section.

http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=4365.0

New Blawg Interview from last night:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/kingcast-interviews-nashua-would-be.html

In which I start with this:

As previously noted, he lives a stone's throw from a friend of mine. My impression is that he is a nice guy, even though a blogger or two have opined that he's "not a ideal citizen" and shit like that. Query, why not I ask? Because he calls the police to his house after a home invasion? Because he has bad-mouthed a cop on occasion, for crissakes? That's part of why we have a Constitution, right? That's why our men and women are dying in Iraq, right? To preserve these goddamn freedoms, right?

Kudos for the referral to the News topic board and the proposed legislation.

-c

[Christopher King]

I think the domicile requirement is unnecessary. A police officer operating in public, i.e. not in undercover surveillance and outside of the cruiser -- should be under the expectation that whatever they say is being taped. This isn't "the inlaws are coming so let's get on our best behavior."

We pay police to be on their best behavior at all points in times, whether people like Jaffrey's Chief Dunn appreciate that or not.

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/07/kingcast-asks-why-did-jaffrey-chief.html

http://nhindymedia.org/newswire/display/3521/index.php

Peace.

[FTL_Ian]

Related news:
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=15249

[Christopher King]

Overload?

Got run time error at 12:04p.

-c

[KBCraig]

Related news:
http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=15249

VBscript error.