Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328

    Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police

    No common sense...

    [QUOTE]

    Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police




    Every other case involving people arrested for filming cops has been thrown
    out of court, but media promulgates hoax that recording police is illegal


    [B]Paul Joseph Watson & Alex [/B]
    [B]Jones[/B]
    Infowars.com
    Wednesday, August 31, 2011


    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.



    [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNlJYSIzjoU&feature=player_embedded[/URL]


    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.


    [URL="http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=204197"]As another report [/URL]
    [URL="http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=204197"]concerning the Allison case documents
    [/URL], 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, [URL="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/justice/new.york.police.video_1_police-encounter-police-officers-videotaping?_s=PM:CRIME"]charges [/URL]
    [URL="http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/justice/new.york.police.video_1_police-encounter-police-officers-videotaping?_s=PM:CRIME"] were dismissed
    [/URL] against a woman who filmed cops in her own back yard in
    Rochester, New York.


    In Illinois itself, [URL="http://dmartez.com/?p=2177"]eavesdropping [/URL]
    [URL="http://dmartez.com/?p=2177"]charges against Tiawanda Moore for recording patrol officers were dropped
    [/URL],
    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.
    [/QUOTE]

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    I personally don't have a problem with recordning cops but the author is a bit of a drama queen. Does anyone actually believe this guy will get life in prsion?:rolleyes:

    If this continues to be a problem the lawmakers in the respective states should amend their wiretapping laws by including language that it "shall not apply to on duty public officials while in the performance of their duty". Don't kill the messenger for people enforcing the law on the books- change the law. The fact that these charges are often reduced and/or dropped does not equate to them being "false arrests".

    Morally and ethically these arrests can be viewed as wrong all day long but again those views do not make the action "illegal" as the author implies.

    Again I think its dumb to charge folks with taping as long as they are not interfering or compromising the officer's safety at the scene.

    My point as noted is to change the language in the wiretapping law so this will forever be a moot point. The answer resides with the law makers not law enforcement.
    Last edited by PatriotReign; 09-01-2011 at 10:45 AM.

  3. #3
    Lawyers would lose business if the laws were clear

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;4124414]I personally don't have a problem with recordning cops but the author is a bit of a drama queen. Does anyone actually believe this guy will get life in prsion?:rolleyes:

    If this continues to be a problem the lawmakers in the respective states should amend their wiretapping laws by including language that it "shall not apply to on duty public officials while in the performance of their duty". Don't kill the messenger for people enforcing the law on the books- change the law. The fact that these charges are often reduced and/or dropped does not equate to them being "false arrests".

    Morally and ethically these arrests can be viewed as wrong all day long but again those views do not make the action "illegal" as the author implies.

    Again I think its dumb to charge folks with taping as long as they are not interfering or compromising the officer's safety at the scene.

    My point as noted is to change the language in the wiretapping law so this will forever be a moot point. The answer resides with the law makers not law enforcement.[/QUOTE]

    I guess but you would think that police would be taught/told what the nuances of the law are. I would also think that the prosecuters wouldn't be wasting our time and money on a case like this.

    +1 Jetdawgg.

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    [QUOTE=Trades;4124492]I guess but you would think that police would be taught/told what the nuances of the law are. I would also think that the prosecuters wouldn't be wasting our time and money on a case like this.

    +1 Jetdawgg.[/QUOTE]

    There is no nuance to the law as to whether a cop is authorized by said law to charge someone/make an arrest. When I went through the police academy I was taught criminal offenses had one or more elements that had to be met before an arrest and/or a charge could be made. Research the general laws for your state, I can guarantee you there is nothing about unpopular laws being unenforceable.

    Admittedly I am no expert on the wiretapping law language in all 50 states (don't know anyone who is) but it's fairly obvious that the wiretapping laws as currently written do NOT contain a "nuance" that excludes cops.

    If a cop arrested someone for a non arrestable offense the DA would run like hell the other way. Again people's negative opinion of this (or any) law does not render it illegal by default.

    The bottom line remains that the language needs to be changed. The same people who endlessly post/complain about the cops sometimes enforcing a law they don't agree with are the same ones who can't be bothered contacting their state lawmakers to change it.
    Last edited by PatriotReign; 09-01-2011 at 12:34 PM.

  6. #6

    An incident where the Police recorded himself (language)

    The mf's and mf'ers go flying loudly once the cop cannot search the car without a warrant


    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs&feature=player_embedded[/url]

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4124742]The mf's and mf'ers go flying loudly once the cop cannot search the car without a warrant


    [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Kw9-vTJYs&feature=player_embedded[/URL][/QUOTE]

    Very professional. Also stealling as it seems he stole the guys drivers license. I would be pissed too if I was a cop and someone was brazzen enough to want to excersize his constitutional rights. GD, MFer. Who does he think he is? :rolleyes:

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    [QUOTE=Trades;4124967]Very professional. Also stealling as it seems he stole the guys drivers license. I would be pissed too if I was a cop and someone was brazzen enough to want to excersize his constitutional rights. GD, MFer. Who does he think he is? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    This guy shouldn't be a cop with his anger managment issues. Yeah he represents how all cops act, is that next?

    BTW you don't always need a warrant to search or even "frisk" areas(s) of a motor vehicle- motor vehicle exception, seach incident to arrest, inventory search, etc. I'd explain further but it will most likely be ignored or you'll post another YouTube vid of a cop acting like a jerk as some type of affirmation of your anti cop agenda.

    :zzz:

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,328
    [QUOTE=PatriotReign;4125406]This guy shouldn't be a cop with his anger managment issues. Yeah he represents how all cops act, is that next?

    BTW you don't always need a warrant to search or even "frisk" areas(s) of a motor vehicle- motor vehicle exception, seach incident to arrest, inventory search, etc. I'd explain further but it will most likely be ignored or you'll post another YouTube vid of a cop acting like a jerk as some type of affirmation of your anti cop agenda.

    :zzz:[/QUOTE]

    I don't have an anti-cop agenda, you are projecting. I am against police that bully citizens, nothing more, nothing less. I respect police officers for doing a job that is very important but I would never want to do. However I feel that police are given a lot of power over citizens and they should be held accountable when they cross the line. Sorry everything has to be black and white with you.

    So tell me what the cops probably cause is to search the vehicle without permission or a warrant would be in this case?

    Also,
    [QUOTE][SIZE=1]
    [SIZE=3]Appeals Court Rules It Is [B]Not Illegal[/B] To Film Police [/SIZE]
    [/SIZE]
    Americans still being arrested for recording cops as a consequence of mass hoax
    [B]Paul Joseph Watson[/B]
    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,” [URL="http://www.dailytech.com/First%2BCircuit%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAppeals%2BRules%2Bthat%2BCitizens%2BCan%2BVideotape%2BPolice/article22587.htm"]reports Daily Tech[/URL].
    “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 [URL="http://www.infowars.com/man-faces-life-in-jail-for-recording-police/"]authorities in Illinois are still trying to prosecute 41-year old mechanic Michael Allison[/URL] 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, [URL="http://dmartez.com/?p=2177"]including a recent case in Illinois[/URL], 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.
    [/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,064
    [QUOTE=Trades;4125644]I don't have an anti-cop agenda, you are projecting. I am against police that bully citizens, nothing more, nothing less. I respect police officers for doing a job that is very important but I would never want to do. However I feel that police are given a lot of power over citizens and they should be held accountable when they cross the line. Sorry everything has to be black and white with you.

    So tell me what the cops probably cause is to search the vehicle without permission or a warrant would be in this case?

    Also,[/QUOTE]

    ========================================

    There could potentially be a 101 reasons for the LEO, to at least claim probable cause, whether those reasons would hold up or not is something for the courts to decide.


    As far as the wire tapping laws goes as it refers to citizens recording police officers performing there duties in public locations, we need a case to go to the supreme court to rule on its constitutionalism and hopefully that will resolve the issue. I disagree with the idea that it should be left up to the citizens to lobby there government officials to repeal or amend the laws.
    I see it as a clearly unconstitutional.

    I regret that some see bringing up these discussions as being anti law enforcement. These are serious constitutional issues.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us