Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
6,303
Reaction score
5,865
Location
Yukon
If you can’t live stream police stops, how is one supposed to find a police officer got an impromptu YMCA song perfomace?

It’s for the kids!
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
90
Location
Fort Gibson
+10000000000000 the section you quoted was not very well thought out.

We shouldn’t stop x car, because it contains armed bad men… We don’t want to face the repercussions of bad men shooting at us… Who the heck would want police officers that think like that?
The story doesn’t say anything about him trying to wrestle away a gun from a bad guy. He was trying to wrestle away a camera phone.

Then the court case states the camera phone with live streaming may put a LEO’s safety at risk. They propose to make use of a camera phone with live streaming during a stop unlawful.

Where does it stop? If it is unlawful for someone to live stream the stop is it justifiable for the LEO to taze the person with the cell phone?

It’s a damn phone connected to social media.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
28,103
Reaction score
11,723
Location
Collinsville
you don't think they would STOP looking at the video to go harass the cops. you don't know much about turds and how they hate the cops and jump to have the chance to help some other turd and maybe even fight the cops. get a clue man. watch some videos about antifa and blm fighting cops maybe you will see what they do.

what you ain't understanding is what i already said. people there could tell other people where they are at then they will all come.

Please tell me you don't really believe that? For most of us I'd agree however, the lowlife's looking for their claim to fame by posting, what they hope will be the next viral video, depicting some tragedy affecting someone else are another thing. Most of them have no ethics and probably couldn't even spell it. Being humane is the last thing on their mind(s). They couldn't care less about who their thoughtless actions may effect, it's all about them. Case in point the scum who will stand around and record a rape in progress never even thinking to lift a finger to help the victim.

These are post hoc fallacy examples and add no value to the discussion. Live streaming a police encounter in a public space does not in and of itself create ANY officer safety issue worth mentioning. Therefore the 1st and 4th Amendment concerns supersede any “what if” concerns.

Claiming these concerns is no more valid than all the liberals wailing about “wild west blood in the streets” when right to carry laws get passed.

Never side against citizen rights, because the State can and will turn on you at a moment’s notice. Don’t make it easier for them to subjugate you at their whim.
 

Gadsden

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
4,986
Reaction score
18,072
Location
Somewhere west of Tulsa
These are post hoc fallacy examples and add no value to the discussion. Live streaming a police encounter in a public space does not in and of itself create ANY officer safety issue worth mentioning. Therefore the 1st and 4th Amendment concerns supersede any “what if” concerns.

Claiming these concerns is no more valid than all the liberals wailing about “wild west blood in the streets” when right to carry laws get passed.

Never side against citizen rights, because the State can and will turn on you at a moment’s notice. Don’t make it easier for them to subjugate you at their whim.
I'm not sure why you included me in your post unless you missed the fact that I agreed with OK Corgi Rancher when he said both sides have valid arguments. My focus was merely pointing out a downside on how it can, and undoubtedly will, be abused if some court gives those whose lives revolve around live-streaming and viral videos carte blanche to record whatever it is they want. My concern is for victims of some tragedy whose right to privacy may very well be trampled on merely so someone else can livestream their worst nightmares. Maybe you think the victims of these events have no rights of privacy to protect them against being recored? Truth be told never did I say a police contact should supersede any of our rights.
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
6,303
Reaction score
5,865
Location
Yukon
The story doesn’t say anything about him trying to wrestle away a gun from a bad guy. He was trying to wrestle away a camera phone.

Then the court case states the camera phone with live streaming may put a LEO’s safety at risk. They propose to make use of a camera phone with live streaming during a stop unlawful.

Where does it stop? If it is unlawful for someone to live stream the stop is it justifiable for the LEO to taze the person with the cell phone?

It’s a damn phone connected to social media.

There seems to be some misunderstanding somewhere. Clearly, we have a right to record or live stream in public spaces. It is not a security issue. I too was commenting on the same section ok corgi rancher was, it had very high opportunity costs and wasn’t well thought out. This: “If you’re afraid of repercussions for stopping somebody maybe you should not have them pulled over in the first place.” is just dumb
 

Johnny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
90
Location
Fort Gibson
Well it was spoken by a self proclaimed idiot.

But the intent of the statement was that if your pulling someone over to harass them needlessly or just for shits and giggles because you can. So much so, that the passenger in the car live streaming the harassment causes the situation to be unsafe. Maybe you should not have pulled them over.
There seems to be some misunderstanding somewhere. Clearly, we have a right to record or live stream in public spaces. It is not a security issue. I too was commenting on the same section ok corgi rancher was, it had very high opportunity costs and wasn’t well thought out. This: “If you’re afraid of repercussions for stopping somebody maybe you should not have them pulled over in the first place.” is just dumb
Well it was spoken by a self proclaimed idiot.

But the intent of the statement was that if your pulling someone over to harass them needlessly or just for shits and giggles because you can. So much so, that the passenger in the car live streaming the encounter causes the situation to be unsafe for the officer. Maybe the officer should not have pulled them over in the first place.

Maybe it still sounds retarded. IDK. I have had more good interactions with cops than I have bad ones. But the bad ones were because the cop was a dick on a power trip and we were young and he could get away with it.

It doesn’t matter which amendments they start re-writing to remove our rights in bulk. But if we give up that minuscule level of freedom for someone’s perceived safety. It will snowball. After the first is the second. Which is some that that nobody on this board wants trampled on. The first large scale freedom grab in my lifetime was post 9/11. Now you have to get a full body scan and groped to ride on a flying school bus.
 

OK Corgi Rancher

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 14, 2020
Messages
3,889
Reaction score
11,309
Location
Greater Francis, OK metropolitan area
But the intent of the statement was that if your pulling someone over to harass them needlessly or just for shits and giggles because you can. So much so, that the passenger in the car live streaming the encounter causes the situation to be unsafe for the officer. Maybe the officer should not have pulled them over in the first place.

OK. I can agree with that. I was trying to point out that one statement wasn't well thought out. That's it.

It doesn’t matter which amendments they start re-writing to remove our rights in bulk. But if we give up that minuscule level of freedom for someone’s perceived safety. It will snowball. After the first is the second. Which is some that that nobody on this board wants trampled on. The first large scale freedom grab in my lifetime was post 9/11. Now you have to get a full body scan and groped to ride on a flying school bus.

And I agree with this, too. As a matter of fact I pretty much agree with all that you've written aside from the one statement.

Having said that, this is still a complicated issue with many opportunities for unintended consequences if the resolution isn't done in a well thought out way.

My first inclination is if the behavior of the person recording the encounter does so peacefully and without interfering with the officer's business, no problem. If it rises to the level of obstruction or interference with the officer(s) they should be arrested and charged. And so often we see people doing that. They seem to think their camera/phone affords them some super power that prevents them from having to follow the law. That and screaming. I have no idea why people think screaming will get them what they want.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
28,103
Reaction score
11,723
Location
Collinsville
I'm not sure why you included me in your post unless you missed the fact that I agreed with OK Corgi Rancher when he said both sides have valid arguments. My focus was merely pointing out a downside on how it can, and undoubtedly will, be abused if some court gives those whose lives revolve around live-streaming and viral videos carte blanche to record whatever it is they want. My concern is for victims of some tragedy whose right to privacy may very well be trampled on merely so someone else can livestream their worst nightmares. Maybe you think the victims of these events have no rights of privacy to protect them against being recored? Truth be told never did I say a police contact should supersede any of our rights.
In the context we’re discussing there is no legal right to privacy. Moral and ethical considerations would be the domain of public scrutiny and if appropriate, civil suit.
 

Gadsden

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
4,986
Reaction score
18,072
Location
Somewhere west of Tulsa
In the context we’re discussing there is no legal right to privacy. Moral and ethical considerations would be the domain of public scrutiny and if appropriate, civil suit.
I agree with recording/live-streaming a police contact. As long as they are not interfering with the officer I don't have any problem with that. Hell, I was recorded more times than I can count. It never bothered me because I knew wasn't doing anything illegal or unethical. Later, when we got body cams, which added to what our dash cams were capturing, I was recording myself as well as the people I was contacting. Unlike some officers, whose reasoning I won't speculate on, I was happy with the advent of dash cams as well as body cams. They helped me in more then one case to prove the accusations being levied against me were lies.

Personal tragedies (and yes I know this wasn't the topic of the thread), like traffic accidents etc are a totally different thing though and considering many of the people recording incidents like I'm referring to don't have much besides their phone (hell some are homeless) good luck with a civil suit. Like the saying says, "you can't get blood out of a turnip".

Believe me when I say, I'm the last one to support any effort to take away our God given and constitutional rights, but there has to be some boundaries defining what is permissible and recording someone's tragedy is way, way out of bounds and there should be, at least in my opinion, a way, legally, to discourage it. My fear is that some liberal judge will rule that victims, simply because they happen to be in public when tragedy strikes, have no right to privacy and then it becomes a free-for-all.

And "Public scrutiny" no disrespect intended, but give me a break. Have you noticed what the public deems as acceptable these days? Just like drag shows and the trash they are feeding our children in school, the media will encourage it and because of that the public will just accept it as the "new norm". Unfortunately, the days when public scrutiny was an effective deterrent, the days we grew up in, are long gone. Today it's all about anything goes and the hell with everyone else but *ME*
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom