- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Federal PA judge rules you can't freely record police
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:26 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:26 am
quote:
Federal judge: Citizens can't always record the police A US district judge ruled Friday that citizens only have a Constitutional right to record police if they are actively criticizing the government by doing so.
quote:
The Fields case revolved around two separate incidents. The first involved Richard Fields, a Temple University student, who, in 2013, saw a group of police officers standing near a home hosting a party, and decided to photograph the scene. Mr. Fields was prompted to leave by an officer, refused, and was detained and cited. His cell phone, which he had used to take the photograph, was searched.
The second incident involved Amanda Geraci, a “legal observer” attending a 2012 public protest in Philadelphia. Ms. Geraci said that when she attempted to record the arrest of one of the protesters, an officer physically restrained her and
prevented her from filming.
LINK
16
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:29 am to LSUTANGERINE
White devils at it again, am I right?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:32 am to LSUTANGERINE
That is a bad ruling and this thread will go 10 pages easy.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:33 am to LSUTANGERINE
Didn't SCOTUS already say we could film them?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:37 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
“Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.”
Meaning: send this up.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:51 am to TigerattheU
quote:
“Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.”
Uh, the Bill of Rights doesn't give rights, etc. It doesn't tell us what we CAN do. It tells the government what it CAN'T do and to frick off. Therefore, there is nothing new to "create".
I also believe the Supreme Court already ruled on this.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:56 am to kilo1234
quote:
The decision means that, pending the result of Field’s and Geraci’s planned appeal, US citizens do not have “a First Amendment right to record police conduct" unless they have a "stated purpose of being critical of the government.”
What does this mean?
Posted on 2/25/16 at 6:58 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
LSUTANGERINE
They didn't take away your World Star vid's bro, it's ok.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:00 am to PuntBamaPunt
It means the judge is an idiot.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:01 am to PuntBamaPunt
It seems all the protesters can still record to show that cops are going beyond their reach or using excessive force or whatever you want to say (so don't everyone that hates cops don't get all upset). But if you are say trying to record cops raiding a hostage situation or something of that nature they can probably still tell you to frick off.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 7:02 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:04 am to LSUTANGERINE
This may be one of the few things I'll agree with you on Tangerine. Every citizen benefits from more accountability for all government employees, especially police officers who are allowed to use deadly force and capable of abusing law-abiding citizens
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:04 am to LSUTANGERINE
They're going to lose this one big time. The people are speaking and they won't be able to do a damn thing about it.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:05 am to Sneaky__Sally
So no more news reports with film I guess. Dash cams must be turned off when you pass the police, right?
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 7:08 am
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:07 am to Upperdecker
I'll also say most of the people Tangerine tries to defend are not law-abiding citizens, but criminals and certain groups of people that support these criminals
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:08 am to bencoleman
I don't have an issue with filmimg police officers in action as long as you don't interfere with the investigation.
Getting in the middle of a traffic stop, crime scene, agd asking a ton of questions about the incident while the officer is doing his job is called hindering in Ms. You will get arrested
Getting in the middle of a traffic stop, crime scene, agd asking a ton of questions about the incident while the officer is doing his job is called hindering in Ms. You will get arrested
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:08 am to Upperdecker
Except you cannot find one comment where I defended a criminal.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:10 am to Gulf Coast Tiger
quote:
Getting in the middle of a traffic stop, crime scene, agd asking a ton of questions about the incident while the officer is doing his job is called hindering in Ms. You will get arrested
Yes. There are already laws preventing that. This ruling reaches much further
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:12 am to LSUTANGERINE
Police have phones, if they need something recorded then they can do it themselves. This is just one more excuse for people to bitch and complain about their "rights". Yeah we get it, you took a poli sci class.
Posted on 2/25/16 at 7:19 am to LucasP
quote:
Police have phones, if they need something recorded then they can do it themselves. This is just one more excuse for people to bitch and complain about their "rights". Yeah we get it, you took a poli sci class.
Bootlicker alert.
This post was edited on 2/25/16 at 7:21 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News