Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - It's now illegal to photograph police officers on duty...

pan6467 · 07-31-2006, 11:08 AM

Story 1: It was blatantly wrong by the officers, however, we truly do not know the whole story. The fact that the police offer NO reasonable excuse or appology sets the tone. If the picture was taken in public there is nothing the cops could do and to have held the 21 yr. old in custody is wrong and makes me wonder what exactly was happening there.

(He was not "arrested" as no charges were brought upon him. Police can hold anyone for 24 hours without charges for whatever they wish. That is media bias to not report this and to make it sound as if he were charged with something and then released.)

Story 2: It seems that both the family and the police force have animosity towards each other. From what I could tell it sounds like the family tends to antagonize the police and the police tend to handle the family like nuisances.\

The signs posted that there was surveillence supercedes any "rights".... as it is the right of the owner to have cameras so long as there are signs or the visitors have been told. Noone's rights supercede those of the landowners in this aspect..... (otherwise you would have people suing every store and casino and pretty much any place of business).

Now, if this family has had this system for 2 years, and has had all these problems listed in the article, why did the family never show the tapes to the police? If they had the police would have known of the cameras and thusly had no leg to stand on. If the family, never showed the police the film then why not?

Also the article states that the cameras are used to watch the front doors and parking lots..... Shared public areas, so again, no true privacy invasion.

If this were a true law and if the police have a leg to stand on saying this was violating state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws.... then I would be very worried if I owned anything in that state. Simply for the fact the next time a criminal gets caught commtting a crime and the main evidence is the tape, it will be ruled as invasion of privacy and in and of itself illegal. Thus, the true criminal would get off, the owner arrested for breaking the laws and possibly sued for invading the criminal's privacy.

07-31-2006, 11:08 AM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Story 1: It was blatantly wrong by the officers, however, we truly do not know the whole story. The fact that the police offer NO reasonable excuse or appology sets the tone. If the picture was taken in public there is nothing the cops could do and to have held the 21 yr. old in custody is wrong and makes me wonder what exactly was happening there. (He was not "arrested" as no charges were brought upon him. Police can hold anyone for 24 hours without charges for whatever they wish. That is media bias to not report this and to make it sound as if he were charged with something and then released.) Story 2: It seems that both the family and the police force have animosity towards each other. From what I could tell it sounds like the family tends to antagonize the police and the police tend to handle the family like nuisances.\ The signs posted that there was surveillence supercedes any "rights".... as it is the right of the owner to have cameras so long as there are signs or the visitors have been told. Noone's rights supercede those of the landowners in this aspect..... (otherwise you would have people suing every store and casino and pretty much any place of business). Now, if this family has had this system for 2 years, and has had all these problems listed in the article, why did the family never show the tapes to the police? If they had the police would have known of the cameras and thusly had no leg to stand on. If the family, never showed the police the film then why not? Also the article states that the cameras are used to watch the front doors and parking lots..... Shared public areas, so again, no true privacy invasion. If this were a true law and if the police have a leg to stand on saying this was violating state wiretapping and eavesdropping laws.... then I would be very worried if I owned anything in that state. Simply for the fact the next time a criminal gets caught commtting a crime and the main evidence is the tape, it will be ruled as invasion of privacy and in and of itself illegal. Thus, the true criminal would get off, the owner arrested for breaking the laws and possibly sued for invading the criminal's privacy. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"