Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Johnny" data-source="post: 3910370" data-attributes="member: 14057"><p>It may be a stupid comment in your eyes. Your EX LEO. And maybe in the eyes of half of this board. But you cannot strip away every constitutional right a person has during a traffic stop so you feel more comfortable about harassing people on the side of the road. </p><p></p><p>I haven’t seen the recording but if the LEO is doing his job, I don’t see why he felt the need to stop the recording or take the phone away.</p><p> If the person doing the recording was actively inciting people to show up an interfere with the traffic stop during the recording, There is most likely and inciting a riot charge or threatening a police officer that he could have been immediately arrested for. Which would have stopped the recording and the passenger would have had charges against him. </p><p></p><p>I don’t see how using the argument “ I don’t want everybody to know I am in this location with this person stopped and I don’t feel safe while doing it” is a valid argument. If you don’t feel comfortable doing an LEO’s job don’t be a cop. </p><p></p><p>The department is trying to set precedent and create law that removes other individuals personal rights under the guise it will make my job safer. When what they really mean is it will make it easier for me to harass them them and threaten them because it is illegal for them to live stream the stop.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Johnny, post: 3910370, member: 14057"] It may be a stupid comment in your eyes. Your EX LEO. And maybe in the eyes of half of this board. But you cannot strip away every constitutional right a person has during a traffic stop so you feel more comfortable about harassing people on the side of the road. I haven’t seen the recording but if the LEO is doing his job, I don’t see why he felt the need to stop the recording or take the phone away. If the person doing the recording was actively inciting people to show up an interfere with the traffic stop during the recording, There is most likely and inciting a riot charge or threatening a police officer that he could have been immediately arrested for. Which would have stopped the recording and the passenger would have had charges against him. I don’t see how using the argument “ I don’t want everybody to know I am in this location with this person stopped and I don’t feel safe while doing it” is a valid argument. If you don’t feel comfortable doing an LEO’s job don’t be a cop. The department is trying to set precedent and create law that removes other individuals personal rights under the guise it will make my job safer. When what they really mean is it will make it easier for me to harass them them and threaten them because it is illegal for them to live stream the stop. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom