|
Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police
I'm really, really tired of hearing about this kind of stuff. There is no excuse for the American people tolerating this kind of bullying by the police and being subject to legal fees and hassle just to fight against improper and illegal arrests.
Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police 41-year old Illinois mechanic Michael Allison faces life in jail for recording police officers after authorities hit him with eavesdropping charges based on the hoax that it is illegal to film cops, a misnomer that has been disproved by every other case against people filming police officers being thrown out of court. The state of Illinois is trying to charge Allison with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Allison refused a plea deal which would have seen him serve no jail time but would reinforce the hoax that it is illegal to film police officers, as well as acting as a chilling effect to prevent other Americans from filming cases of police brutality. Allison has chosen to reject the plea bargain and fight to clear his name via a jury trial, arguing, “If we don’t fight for our freedoms here at home we’re all going to lose them.” A judge is expected to rule on when the case will go to trial over the next two weeks. As another report concerning the Allison case documents, in every other example where people have been arrested for recording police officers, the charges have been dropped and the case thrown out of court. Despite this fact, the state is so desperate to make an example out of Allison that an assistant from the Attorney General’s Office was recently sent to speak against him during a hearing. The notion that it is illegal to film police officers is a mass hoax that is being promulgated by authorities, the media, and police officers themselves. In the latest example, charges were dismissed against a woman who filmed cops in her own back yard in Rochester, New York. In Illinois itself, eavesdropping charges against Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped, after a “Criminal Court jury quickly repudiated the prosecution’s case, taking less than an hour to acquit Moore on both eavesdropping counts.” Despite the fact that recording police officers (public servants) is perfectly legal, Americans are still being arrested for doing so, and the establishment media is enthusiastically perpetuating the hoax that such conduct is unlawful, even though in doing so they are completely eroding protections that guarantee press freedom. There is no expectation of privacy in public, the police are fully aware of this, which is why they have dash cams on their cars to record incidents, wear microphones and utilize other recording equipment as part of their job. Cases like Allison’s have been thrown out all over the country and yet police continue to arrest people for filming them as a form of intimidation. The fact that the state is knowingly ignoring its own laws in order to engage in acts of official repression highlights the rampant criminality that has infested every level of American government. This behavior is reflective of a predatory system that seeks to criminalize all first amendment activities. It also highlights how petrified the system is about the public being able to document and record acts of police brutality. Prosecutors in Allison’s case are deliberately attempting jail an innocent man for life for an activity that they know full well is not illegal. If anything, they should be the ones being charged with illegal conduct and official oppression. |
drudge much? |
I can't believe the state is backing the officer on this one. It seems like one of those situations they would just want to sweep under the table rather than having it go public. I'm glad the guy is fighting it and not taking the plea deal, stuff like this needs to be brought to light.
|
Makes me sick.
|
Fuck the police.
|
Originally Posted by gospeed81
(Post 766524)
Makes me sick.
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 766527)
Fuck the police.
I've recorded police and security guards plenty of times growing up skateboarding. I actually have a tape somewhere of me and a friend asking the cops to arrest us and throw us in the back of the car for our film and they laughed and joked about it with us. I really think it depends on the situation that's being recorded and the person recording it that lead to things like this. The fact that this guy was (in the officer's mind) fighting their authority is what brought him to being arrested, not so much because he recorded them. Now the state took a side and they have to stick with it, otherwise it just becomes a joke. Hopefully this guy goes to trial and fights like a motherfucker. The jury will almost certainly find him innocent on all charges and maybe this can be a good start for us to put this kind of bullying to an end. |
99% of the time its like this:
cop is a fucking prick and abuses his power. notices someone recording him and realizes he's fucked because he has to answer for what he did. flips out and goes ape shit on the civilian recording to scare them into giving up evidence and cover up his tracks. Just my .02 |
You motherfuckers obviously have something to hide. Now please STFU and move along, there's nothing to see here. Why won't you leave? STOP RESISTING!
|
Sounds like the DA is shaking in his boots - you don't offer a plea bargain for 0 years and then go to trial seeking 20.
|
Oh, and this guy is going to need to find another state to live in after this goes down. I made a complaint back when I was 17 because a cop pulled me over for going 47mph in a 30 over road humps in a VW that was slammed to the ground. He then, without permission, tore the car apart, broke any plastic he could, and spoke to me like a real asshole. Me, being the fucker that I am, and a highschool debater, well, I recorded the conversation and turned it into internal affairs. I was harassed daily by police until I left for college.
|
:cool:
Originally Posted by 18psi
(Post 766561)
99% of the time its like this:
cop is a fucking prick and abuses his power. |
There needs to be some sort of punitive damages levied against law enforcement for laws like this which are crushed by SCOTUS. I have to pay the local government $200+ if I get get caught speeding (to keep it off my record) or I have to pay $125 if the nose of my car "encroaches" past the white line at the stop-light. However the assumption and provision that "police are functioning in good intentions" needs to be revoked when it is proven that their intentions were unconstitutional at best.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 766565)
Sounds like the DA is shaking in his boots - you don't offer a plea bargain for 0 years and then go to trial seeking 20.
It's like how the EPA would drop the 8 million fine on a rabbit farmer if he signed a paper that stated that the EPA had legal authority to do what htey did to him. BTW who race preps a car by cutting a hole in the hood.. CATMAN disapproves. |
This type of shit infuriates me.
They hinted at it in the video: If cop cars automatically record the citizen during a traffic stop without our consent, not to mention the TV show Cops, why then are they trying to make it illegal for citizens to do the same thing? It goes back to the old saying that I always hear from cops, when they justify searching your car, running your plates, etc: If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. |
Where's the ACLU?
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 766588)
Where's the ACLU?
Funny. |
Just a piece of FYI, but every state has laws regarding whether recorded conversations are one or two party consent. Federal laws state one party consent, but the states may restrict it to two party consent. If the second party does not consent to the recording, the first party must stop recording or be in violation of the law. Before conducting such a recording, it's good to know if your party is one or two party consent. If Illinois is a two party consent state, the civilian may not record the conversation without willful consent of the officer.
This is why you get the "this conversation is being recorded for training and quality issues...." sometimes. Either party may be in a two party consent state, so they HAVE to notify you they are recording it. If you don't consent, they may not record it. If they do, they are in violation of criminal statutes, and can probably get hammered in a civil suit. |
In this case however they're hitting him with a felony first class charge...which makes now sense at all.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 766565)
Sounds like the DA is shaking in his boots - you don't offer a plea bargain for 0 years and then go to trial seeking 20.
I hate cops. It's like all the motherfuckers with inferiority complex got together and decided to join the force. |
It gets better:
Chicago State's Attorney Lets Bad Cops Slide, Prosecutes Citizens Who Record Them The other case to challenge the wiretap law is that of Christopher Drew, an artist who was arrested in December 2009 for selling art without a permit on the streets of Chicago. Drew recorded his arrest, and now faces four to 15 years for documenting the incident. In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics. Drew's case was suspended after he was diagnosed with lung cancer earlier this year. |
Originally Posted by soflarick
(Post 766605)
Just a piece of FYI, but every state has laws regarding whether recorded conversations are one or two party consent. Federal laws state one party consent, but the states may restrict it to two party consent. If the second party does not consent to the recording, the first party must stop recording or be in violation of the law. Before conducting such a recording, it's good to know if your party is one or two party consent. If Illinois is a two party consent state, the civilian may not record the conversation without willful consent of the officer.
This is why you get the "this conversation is being recorded for training and quality issues...." sometimes. Either party may be in a two party consent state, so they HAVE to notify you they are recording it. If you don't consent, they may not record it. If they do, they are in violation of criminal statutes, and can probably get hammered in a civil suit. |
In May 1836, after opponents destroyed his printing press for the third time, Lovejoy left St. Louis and moved across the river to Alton in the free state of Illinois. In 1837 he started the Alton Observer, also an abolitionist paper. On November 7, 1837, a pro-slavery mob attacked the warehouse where Lovejoy had landed his fourth printing press. Lovejoy and his supporters exchanged gunfire with them, and when he tried to prevent the mob from burning down the warehouse, they shot him. He died on the spot and was soon hailed as a martyr by abolitionists across the country. After his death, his brother Owen entered politics and became the leader of the Illinois abolitionists.
On November 2, 1837, five days before his murder, a public meeting was held in Alton, IL to discuss the "Abolition question." At this meeting, Lovejoy gave the following speech: "It is not true, as has been charged upon me, that I hold in contempt the feelings and sentiments of this community, in reference to the question which is now agitating it. I respect and appreciate the feelings and opinions of my fellow-citizens, and it is one of the most painful and unpleasant duties of my life, that I am called upon to act in opposition to them. If you suppose, sir, that I have published sentiments contrary to those generally held in this community, because I delighted in differing from them, or in occasioning a disturbance, you have entirely misapprehended me. But, sir, while I value the good opinion of my fellow-citizens, as highly as any one, I may be permitted to say, that I am governed by higher considerations than either the favor or the fear of man. I am impelled to the course I have taken, because I fear God. As I shall answer it to my God in the great day, I dare not abandon my sentiments, or cease in all proper ways to propogate them. "I, Mr. Chairman, have not desired, or asked any compromise. I have asked for nothing but to be protected in my rights as a citizen--rights which God has given me, and which are guaranteed to me by the consitution of my country. Have I, sir, been guilty of any infraction of the laws? Whose good name have I injured? When, and where, have I published any thing injurious to the reputation of Alton? "Have I not, on the other hand, labored, in common with the rest of my fellow-citizens, to promote the reputation and interests of this City? What, sir, I ask, has been my offence? [sic] Put your finger upon it--define it--and I stand ready to answer for it. If I have committed any crime, you can easily convict me. You have public sentiment in your favor. You have [your] juries, and you have your attorney [looking at the attorney-general], and I have no doubt you can convict me. But if I have been guilty of no violation of law, why am I hunted up and down continually like a partridge upon the mountains? Why am I threatened with the tar-barrel? Why am I waylaid every day, and from night to night, and my life in jeopardy every hour? "You have, sir, made up, as the lawyers say, a false issue; there are not two parties between whom there can be a compromise. I plant myself, sir, down on my unquestionable rights, and the question to be decided is, whether I shall be protected in the exercise and enjoyment of those rights,--that is the question, sir;--whether my property shall be protected; whether I shall be suffered to go home to my family at night without being assailed, and threatened with tar and feathers, and assassination; whether my afflicted wife, whose life has been in jeopardy, from continued alarm and excitement, shall, night after night, be driven from a sick-bed into the garret, to save her life from the brick-brats and violence of the mobs; that, sir, is the question." [Here, he reportedly broke into tears, then continued.] "Forgive me, sir, that I have thus betrayed my weakness. It was the allusion to my family that overcame my feelings. Not, sir, I assure you, from any fears on my part. I have no personal fears. Not that I feel able to contest the matter with the whole community; I know perfectly well I am not. I know, sir, you can tar and feather me, hang me up, or put me into the Mississippi, without the least difficulty. But what then? Where shall I go? I have been made to feel that if I am not safe at Alton, I shall not be safe anywhere. I recently visited St. Charles to bring home my family, and was torn from their frantic embrace by a mob. I have been beset night and day at Alton. And now, if I leave here and go elsewhere, violence may overtake me in my retreat, and I have no more claim upon the protection of any other community than I have upon this; and I have concluded, after consultation with my friends, and earnestly seeking counsel of God, to remain at Alton, and here to insist on protection in the exercise of my rights. If the civil authorities refuse to protect me, I must look to God; and if I die, I have determined to make my grave in Alton." And his best quote: "As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” |
Originally Posted by buffon01
(Post 766609)
Specially because plea offers have to be agreed with the defendant before they are offered.
All this blanket cop bashing is vile. Sure, there are some bad apples in the cart, but the other side of the coin is anarchy and a complete deterioration of society. The issue here is that we're no longer a republic, and the government is using laws and regulations to push political and financial agendas, not to ensure the basic safety needs of the public. Remind you all of another society that did that......comrades? |
Originally Posted by pdexta
(Post 766616)
I believe the conversation consent laws pertain to private interactions not public. I'm sure I've caught hundreds of people in the background of random pictures/videos throughout the years and never received consent, at 15 years in prison a person I'm going to be there for quite some time.
IIRC, the whole Title III issue came up when the FBI wiretapped a bunch of corrupt Congresspeople, and subsequently arrested and prosecuted them. The laws were then enacted to "protect personal privacy and freedom". |
Problem is laws that are enacted to "protect personal provacy and freedom" should almost always be laws that limit what government can do, not the other way around.
|
Well, shit like the Patriot Act scare the fuck out of me...
|
are you a terrorist?
|
No. What concerns me is the idea that any government agency can just slap the label of "terrorist" and do as they please with an individual without any proof... just because race car.
|
I did some more research on the wiretapping laws and when/why they were enacted. I recall reading an article about certain Congresspeople getting hung up in an FBI sting decades ago, and that the laws were against wiretapping were enacted. But I've just read some other articles that stated that the US Supreme Court passed down some decisions basically stating that wiretapping without a warrant or consent was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Perhaps some of these things were taking place around the same time. Either way, the laws were intended to restrict law enforcement's freely recording conversations.
The Patriot Act, well, that's another topic. Lots of people during the Bush administration ran around screaming that it restricted civilians' freedom. I personally don't remember being restricted in any way at that time. However, I can easy see the current administration using it to fulfill political agendas when Congress and voters try to restrict the administration from it's activities. |
Originally Posted by buffon01
(Post 766668)
No. What concerns me is the idea that any government agency can just slap the label of "terrorist" and do as they please with an individual without any proof... just because race car.
|
It's ALL admins, not just the current one.
|
Sorry to ruin the party:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/cit...-1764P-01A.pdf Ruling from Monday at the circuit court level, affirming the lower court's ruling that ALSO said that taping the cops in public is not wiretapping. Also, that guy's site sells a bunch of shit to conspiracy theorists, so maybe he's got a vested interest in trumping up every possible story like this? For fun, I clicked the "About Alex Jones" link on that site, and got this far: Internationally recognized veteran broadcaster, documentary filmmaker, and investigative journalist Alex Jones has been featured as a prominent figure of the 9/11 Truth Movement #manufacturedoutrage |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 766702)
It's ALL admins, not just the current one.
I've been thinking about this one. Being the cop is a "servant of the public", not to mention "anything you say and will be used against you", there is no reasonable expectation of privacy between the cop and civilian, therefore no law violation by the civilian. Anything the civilian says to the cop is going to be recorded either on paper or by audio, and will be used against said civilian, which would make it public information anyway. The state's going to have it's butt in a HUGE civil suit. |
To protect and serve... so long as you don't make an audio or video recording of an officer doing something wrong. How the fuck is the crime "eavesdropping" by simply recording an LEO? Eavesdropping on what? I'm quite sure this guy will go free, but if for whatever reason he doesn't some people really need to stand up for this kind of bullying.
|
They're trying to apply wiretapping/eavesdropping statutes to the case, that's why. But I think the main issue is that there's no expectation of privacy because the entire conversation becomes public information in court.
|
Originally Posted by soflarick
(Post 766721)
They're trying to apply wiretapping/eavesdropping statutes to the case, that's why. But I think the main issue is that there's no expectation of privacy because the entire conversation becomes public information in court.
|
It's not an out of date law, it's that they are trying to inappropriately apply it to suit their agenda. If you mean out of date, in that they have to include "not to be applied during contact between an LEO and civilian", well the Constitution already has Amendments to protect the civilian, which are being trampled by the state right now.
|
I hope the DA in Boston is dumb enough to appeal their case to scotus. |
Soflarick - incorrect, the "victim" must agree to the plea before is even offered to the defendant.
|
This reminds me of the book Atlas Shrugged.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 766705)
Sorry to ruin the party:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/cit...-1764P-01A.pdf Ruling from Monday at the circuit court level, affirming the lower court's ruling that ALSO said that taping the cops in public is not wiretapping. #manufacturedoutrage Think the state is going to pay this guy's legal and court fees? |
I don't understand how these police officers and prosecutors can sleep at night.
|
You know the way our government is going, Hitler seems pretty good at this point (excluding the holocaust of course).
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 766790)
Citizens should not have to regularly defend their actions in court simply because police and the DA's office disregards or ignores established law. It's a bully tactic that relies on the average citizen deciding that fighting the charges is too much hassle.
Think the state is going to pay this guy's legal and court fees? Who will watch the Watchmen!? Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police Americans still being arrested for recording cops as a consequence of mass hoax Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Thursday, September 1, 2011 Despite the mass hoax still being promulgated by both the mainstream media and local authorities across America, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not illegal for citizens to videotape police officers when they are on public duty. “The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court,” reports Daily Tech. “The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” stated the ruling, adding that this has been the case all along, and that the right to film police officers is not just restricted to the press. The case cited several examples where citizens were arrested for documenting acts of police brutality on recording devices, including that of Simon Glik, who was arrested after he filmed Boston police punching a man on the Boston Common. Another case involved Khaliah Fitchette, a teenager who filmed police aggressively removing a man from a bus in Newark. Fitchette was arrested and detained for two hours before police deleted the video from her cellphone. The court ruling also made it clear that bloggers who report news based on their recordings of police have equal protection under the law as journalists. “The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status,” stated the court. Despite the ruling, state authorities in Illinois are still trying to prosecute 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison for recording police officers in public. Allison faces a life sentence on five separate counts of “eavesdropping” that add up to 75 years. The Attorney General’s Office is determined to make an example out of Allison in a bid to intimidate the public against filming the actions of police. In brazenly disregarding the law as well as legal precedent (every single charge against people for filming police, including a recent case in Illinois, has been thrown out of court), authorities are clearly using official oppression in their vendetta against Allison. Despite innumerable cases where charges have been dropped against citizens arrested for filming police, the mass media still constantly invokes the misnomer that it is illegal to record cops in public. The fact that arrests are still occurring on a regular basis nationwide also underscores how police are being trained to enforce a law that doesn’t exist, before hitting victims of this hoax with charges more severe than those a murderer would expect to receive and expecting them to back down and plea bargain, a startling reflection of the cancerous criminality that has set the United States well on course to becoming a police state. |
Its time to turn this statement around:
The police wouldn't care if they are recorded unless they knew what they were doing was wrong. If they guy was ramming a lense in the cops face like pappa-papparazzi, it could be obstruction...but that's obviously not the case. |
Originally Posted by cymx5
(Post 766795)
I don't understand how these police officers and prosecutors can sleep at night.
Try googling "psychopaths and politicians": http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...nd+politicians |
|
I betcha that guy has a long smooth baton he sticks in his ass every night...
I'm surprised the camera guy didnt ask him what he thinks about cops that are making their own law. |
It is unfortunate that today, so many of our personal interactions with police are negative. They are pulling us over arbitrarily and issuing revenue generating citations when convenient to them for exceeding artificially low posted speed limits or otherwise "hassling" most citizens that they interact with today.
If 90% of cops were "doing good" but you only ever interacting with ones that display the prototypical "bully" demeanor, you develop a negative bias. As car enthusiasts, that's almost always going to be our experience. For example: http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...10909932?tc=cr On the bright side, there are good cops out there. I'm a member of a site that has a definite anti-shitty cop bias. We coined the term "FTC" and they made t-shirts with that slogan. However, they also do try and make an effort to recognize non-shitty cops. For example: Story with video |
Of course there are good cops out there, just like the occasional good teacher!
|
Just for kicks and giggles, what percentage of the police population do you think is good? By good I mean officers that carry on their jobs as they are supposed to.
|
I'm sure it's a high percentage.
|
I'd say 40% enforce the laws as they are, the rest make up their own laws in one way or another to benefit their actions.
|
The problem is not just what percentage of cops are good, it's that even the good cops are required to enforce intrusive and unjust laws.
|
These stuff is unacceptable.
That is why I stay away from cops as much as I can. Like I posted in another thread, I got a beatdown from male and female police officers many years ago. Back in the day in the era of film cameras, my buddy was prepping the photography gear and accidentally released the flash. There was a cop car right beside us, we got pulled over (the cops thought we took a picture at them), the mofos removed the film, destroyed it in the floor, and a good beatdown. Ah they were decent enough to give me back the camera as I did not resist arrest. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 767055)
The problem is not just what percentage of cops are good, it's that even the good cops are required to enforce intrusive and unjust laws.
All types of people abuse authority. The thing that sucks about cops is that they enforce laws that many of them probably don't even know why themselves!! |
I watched "Changeling" the other day and got paranoid...and that happened like 50 years ago.
|
There might be good cops out there, but I haven't met one yet. And since you never know which one you're gonna get, I can't give any of 'em the benefit of the doubt. For the most part, I think law enforcement attracts uneducated dickwads who enjoy the power trip that comes with a gun and a badge.
The only cop I knew personally (and briefly) was one of the biggest assholes I have ever met. Every story he had revolved around pulling people for no reason and fucking with them. And then there was the occasional story of beating up some kid who got "mouthy." Then he liked to brag about how he could get hammered and drive home, because if he got pulled over, his cop buddies would let him off. A real swell guy. |
|
I'm sure.^
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands