[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Haha - good call.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR and FWIW, this story is about the Miami Beach police department not Miami. Separate outfits.
(Sorry, FTR and FWIW, “outfits” is a western ranching term. It does NOT mean clothes)[/quote]
LOL! I just had to laugh at your disclosure!
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Lt. Col Dave Grossman (“On Combat”) makes the point that humans are hardwired to keep pulling that trigger over and over…
Left over thing from evolution.[/quote]
Ah, kinda like thrusting that spear in for the 20th time when it’s clear life left the body on the 5th?
They rarely do this in the movies sadly. Wolf Creek is a perfect example. =/
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Lt. Col Dave Grossman (“On Combat”) makes the point that humans are hardwired to keep pulling that trigger over and over…
Left over thing from evolution.[/quote]
That’s correct. Cro-Magnon Man was an expert marksman and firearm aficionado.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR and FWIW, this story is about the Miami Beach police department not Miami. Separate outfits.
(Sorry, FTR and FWIW, “outfits” is a western ranching term. It does NOT mean clothes)[/quote]
sooo…not these outfits?
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Lt. Col Dave Grossman (“On Combat”) makes the point that humans are hardwired to keep pulling that trigger over and over…
Left over thing from evolution.[/quote]
That’s correct. Cro-Magnon Man was an expert marksman and firearm aficionado.
[/quote]
I think he’s trying to draw a connection between firing guns and masturbating. I don’t see it.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Well the guy that driving was black and the guy that was recording was black ergo he was a suspect.
Am I doing it right?[/quote]
or
the guy in the car had a gun and had already struck an officer… and the guy recording was breaking the law (according to floridas “two party consent” law)
am I doing it right?[/quote]
As far as I can tell, he was breaking no law. The consent law applies only to private conversations and interactions, not to events that take place in public, such as this shooting.
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Well the guy that driving was black and the guy that was recording was black ergo he was a suspect.
Am I doing it right?[/quote]
or
the guy in the car had a gun and had already struck an officer… and the guy recording was breaking the law (according to floridas “two party consent” law)
am I doing it right?[/quote]
As far as I can tell, he was breaking no law. The consent law applies only to private conversations and interactions, not to events that take place in public, such as this shooting.[/quote]
Is this true? I hope so, because that changes everything.
Yeah!! Fuck the police!!! Anarchy, baby!!!
Just thought I’d try it on for a minute…
No?
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Yeah!! Fuck the police!!! Anarchy, baby!!!
Just thought I’d try it on for a minute…
No?[/quote]
C’mon. Admit it. Feels good, doesn’t it?
LOL…yeah…it felt good to let that out. A single tear fell from my eye when I said it…
Unfortunately, when you see other officers doing stuff like this, you just have to slap your forehead, say WTF, and then keep on keepin on, I guess.
Unfortunately, I have had to deal with the Miami police department on a couple occasions. This news article isn’t very surprising at all.
In the video, it says this happened at 4am on Collins ave. That street was probably crowded, even that late at night. I just wonder how there wasn’t more bystanders injured. If you want to know how the Miami P.D. really is, just watch CSI Miami…and then think of the exact opposite.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FTR and FWIW, this story is about the Miami Beach police department not Miami. Separate outfits.
(Sorry, FTR and FWIW, “outfits” is a western ranching term. It does NOT mean clothes)[/quote]
Don’t lie, we all know you know which area to get ‘frisked’ because of their short shorts.
LOL at all the people who presume to know what should have been done or what they would have done if put in that exact situation.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Well the guy that driving was black and the guy that was recording was black ergo he was a suspect.
Am I doing it right?[/quote]
or
the guy in the car had a gun and had already struck an officer… and the guy recording was breaking the law (according to floridas “two party consent” law)
am I doing it right?[/quote]
As far as I can tell, he was breaking no law. The consent law applies only to private conversations and interactions, not to events that take place in public, such as this shooting.[/quote]
Is this true? I hope so, because that changes everything. [/quote]
That has always been my understanding. I’m not a lawyer, but I looked it up again before posting, and everything I found says that it is, in fact, true. This is not the first (not even close to it) case I have heard of in which people legally filming the police were harassed, assaulted, and/or had their recording device confiscated or destroyed. “Allegedly.”
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
LOL at all the people who presume to know what should have been done or what they would have done if put in that exact situation. [/quote]
You post in the wrong thread by accident or something?
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Well the guy that driving was black and the guy that was recording was black ergo he was a suspect.
Am I doing it right?[/quote]
or
the guy in the car had a gun and had already struck an officer… and the guy recording was breaking the law (according to floridas “two party consent” law)
am I doing it right?[/quote]
As far as I can tell, he was breaking no law. The consent law applies only to private conversations and interactions, not to events that take place in public, such as this shooting.[/quote]
Is this true? I hope so, because that changes everything. [/quote]
That has always been my understanding. I’m not a lawyer, but I looked it up again before posting, and everything I found says that it is, in fact, true. This is not the first (not even close to it) case I have heard of in which people legally filming the police were harassed, assaulted, and/or had their recording device confiscated or destroyed. “Allegedly.”[/quote]
Not nessecarily… The “grey” area with this law arises when you try to define what a “private conversation or interaction” is. If you were being pulled over for a DUI and the cop was asking you questions would you want some stranger to film you and putting it on YouTube? You might be on the side of a public road but that’s a pretty private conversation/interaction isn’t it? (that’s the defense I’ve heard used before and it makes sense)
A lot (if not most) of these cases are thrown out/dismissed once they go to trial but based on the consent law, you can be arrested for filming police like that (even though it’ll probably not stay on your record as a felony)
But smashing the phone is DEFINITELY NOT part of the law lol
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]eeu743 wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:
waits for the first post arguing that it was all justified, that people just dont understand the stress police are put under, that citizens should bend over and take it, and/or the guy filming is somehow the bad guy[/quote]
Well the guy that driving was black and the guy that was recording was black ergo he was a suspect.
Am I doing it right?[/quote]
or
the guy in the car had a gun and had already struck an officer… and the guy recording was breaking the law (according to floridas “two party consent” law)
am I doing it right?[/quote]
As far as I can tell, he was breaking no law. The consent law applies only to private conversations and interactions, not to events that take place in public, such as this shooting.[/quote]
Is this true? I hope so, because that changes everything. [/quote]
That has always been my understanding. I’m not a lawyer, but I looked it up again before posting, and everything I found says that it is, in fact, true. This is not the first (not even close to it) case I have heard of in which people legally filming the police were harassed, assaulted, and/or had their recording device confiscated or destroyed. “Allegedly.”[/quote]
Not nessecarily… The “grey” area with this law arises when you try to define what a “private conversation or interaction” is. If you were being pulled over for a DUI and the cop was asking you questions would you want some stranger to film you and putting it on YouTube? You might be on the side of a public road but that’s a pretty private conversation/interaction isn’t it? (that’s the defense I’ve heard used before and it makes sense)
A lot (if not most) of these cases are thrown out/dismissed once they go to trial but based on the consent law, you can be arrested for filming police like that (even though it’ll probably not stay on your record as a felony)
But smashing the phone is DEFINITELY NOT part of the law lol[/quote]
Many police cars are equipped with cameras that film, among other things, the scenario you just described.
^^
The use of the ICV has been up held in numerous court cases. The admissibility of videotape evidence into a court proceeding, expectation of privacy, surreptious recordings, and possible violations of fifth and sixth Amendment rights by the use of video during sobriety tests have been addressed through the court.
The admissibility of videotape evidence was outlined in a seven-step test in United States v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1977). The court decided videotape was allowed in court if the following criteria could be met:
ICV 23