Open Carry Activist Secretly Record Police Trumping up Charges, Racketeering
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Not exactly, as far as I have read the guy is an open Carry advocate/activist and is as well a 1A, 4A, and 5A activist.
At the time, he was openly carrying, holding a sign way up the road from a DUI check point that asked drivers to invoke their 5A rights.
The ACLU is actually suing because of the direct violation of his 1st amendment rights by the cops. They also illegally seized his camera, his gun, and an illegal search.
The article is long, but it lays it out fairly well.
I love the cosmic karma that the fact the officers illegally seized the camera that they then used to covertly record themselves conspiring to lie, make false statements in order to convict a man of crimes he did not commit, and then conspired to trump up which charged to charge him with so they could then lie about it later in court to convict the man.
Disgusting.
I have a feeling this happens way more than we would like to think.
Also I think they will be training their officers a lot differently now about confiscating recording equipment either they confiscate it and take it with them and destroy it or they don't take it at all.
They'll get better at this so that they can keep doing this to innocent people.
Joined
·
46,417 Posts
I thought that was a Ridley thing?
Joined
·
9,362 Posts
gotcha...that makes sense
Joined
·
75,211 Posts
They have done it before. http://reason.com/blog/2007/04/06/the-aclu-defends-gun-rights
Joined
·
75,211 Posts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jul/22/aclu-rethinking-second-amendment/ ACLU re-thinking Second Amendment
Joined
·
3,408 Posts
He beer watch out they might try to get him on wire tapping or eavesdropping
Joined
·
9,362 Posts
thanks for the update. at least some of their chapters are correcting their inconsistencies.
Thank you, that's very kind of you to say. I didn't know if I would be ok posting it there because the gun is sort of secondary to the lawsuit. The gun was illegally seized and searched, through running numbers, but the ACLU is actually suing due to 1A and 4A, violations and suppression, if I remember the article correctly.
I appreciate you commenting though, thank you. That's very kind of you.
Nice! That is very uplifting to see!
That is very positive to see, and I hope the trend continues. The ACLU can be a very powerful and positive group when they use all their powers to stop corruption against human rights.
While I find such laws that bar this to be disgusting, I believe you are right, and they certainly will probably try.
With that said, after years in court, I think two they mentioned, all charges were finally dropped against the man, after tons of money and time expended as well.
Also, I believe various courts have stood up for a citizens rights to record police in public, especially while they are doing something in their official capacity.
The truth is, anything else just breeds corruption among officers of the law.
Most LEO video tape everything from a body camera or dash cam, and some have audio as well, which is very important I believe, and they video and record all that they do if working properly. And they should.
With that said, its only fair that a citizen can record anything publicly done and in official capacity of an officer of the law as well.
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
Wiretapping pertains to telephone conversations - which this was not.
Eavesdropping relates to listening to a conversation you are not a party to - however, in this case they confiscated the recorder so it was under their control and they were responsible for its care and operation while it was confiscated.
There is case law on audio taping others when not present but it relates to what basically amounts to bugging others and does not relate to the recorder actually having been seized by officials and through their own negligence it having recorded their illegal activities.
This all came up for me in a case involving a minor who was intellectually disabled whose lawyer reportedly had the parent sew a recorder into the lining of the child's coat and then they entered the recording of abuse into the record. The Federal Court ruled that since no competent party to the conversation had agreed to the recording it was not admissible. In the Court's development of that line of reasoning much of what I put above was reviewed along the way.
Eavesdropping relates to listening to a conversation you are not a party to - however, in this case they confiscated the recorder so it was under their control and they were responsible for its care and operation while it was confiscated.
There is case law on audio taping others when not present but it relates to what basically amounts to bugging others and does not relate to the recorder actually having been seized by officials and through their own negligence it having recorded their illegal activities.
This all came up for me in a case involving a minor who was intellectually disabled whose lawyer reportedly had the parent sew a recorder into the lining of the child's coat and then they entered the recording of abuse into the record. The Federal Court ruled that since no competent party to the conversation had agreed to the recording it was not admissible. In the Court's development of that line of reasoning much of what I put above was reviewed along the way.
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
ACLU Files Civil Lawsuit for Connecticut Open Carrier
:shock:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...files-civil-lawsuit-connecticut-open-carrier/
:shock:
http://www.acluct.org/updates/aclu-ct-sues-three-police-officers-for-violating-protesters-rights/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...files-civil-lawsuit-connecticut-open-carrier/
Joined
·
13,696 Posts
Since none of you *******s answered me... it's called Mobile Justice and they even have a version for your state with particular laws on recording and such.
Joined
·
16,443 Posts
That's a bit less cordial than they're used to being addressed as. :lol:
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
