Motorcyclist Charged for Recording

[z06boy]

I posted that I thought the plain clothes officer acted inappropriately and I STILL DO...nothing has changed with that opinion.

I also have posted that I think this charge about videotaping is BS...HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by z06boy

HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube.

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

[z06boy]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

I'm with you on this...I too think this is all BS...the officer on the side of the road was wrong in his approach imho and police coming to the guy's house and confiscating his stuff and arresting him was wrong imho as well HOWEVER they had a legal right to do this once he posted it in public without dual consent.

Here in NC only one of the two parties involved has to know it's being recorded so that $hit wouldn't fly here but in Maryland obviously it's different and I didn't know that until this thread was posted.

[Apoc]

Apparently its fine in Canada, as long as your part of the convo.. I had heard of this, but just looked it up for clarification. Cool law.


Canada requires "one-party notification" - only one person in the
conversation needs to be aware that the conversation is being taped.
In other words, the person taping the conversation must be
participating in it. You will find this law in the Criminal Code of
Canada.

CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA: PART VI: INVASION OF PRIVACY:

Section 183.1: Where a private communication is originated by more
than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be
received by more than one person, a consent to the interception
thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the
purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]"
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.183.1.html

Definitions:
"A one party state means one party to the telephone conversation has
to have knowledge and give consent. In a two party state, all parties
must have knowledge and give consent."
"In Ontario, Canada... it is only legal to tape a conversation when at
least ONE of the people involved in the conversation is aware that it
is being recorded."
http://www.telephonemagic.com/call_r..._equipment.htm

[Sean]

This kind of asinine behavior is just going to make more people run. Pulling a gun on someone from an unmarked car, out of uniform, pulling them off the bike, charging them with recording...they're insane. This is absolutely inexcusable behavior and people are going to vote against it with their right wrists.

[Avatard]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

Just because it's written in law doesn't make it right. His Youtube posting exposed something that the public very much needed, and has a right, to see.

This is what so many miss. Laws are written, usually to fix a social problem.

The problem with written law is that it can be misinterpreted, and sometimes, the act that the law is meant to prevent, is not what the law is "used for". People will use the law "as written", as a means of accomplishing another goal...like COVERING ONE'S ASS FOR BEING A BAD POLICE OFFICER...which is what happened here.

Law win, justice fail.

The People lose.




...time to revise.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by z06boy

I posted that I thought the plain clothes officer acted inappropriately and I STILL DO...nothing has changed with that opinion.

I also have posted that I think this charge about videotaping is BS...HOWEVER now that I see that "Maryland is a two-party consent state"...the guy did fvck up by posting this on YouTube.

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

[Avatard]

Originally Posted by azoomm

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

It's all ridiculous.



Here's his camera. Do you think the cop knew he might be recorded?

I think the only thing that would have made it more obvious is if he had a sound man, with a boom mic riding two up with him.

Thrown out of court in 3 seconds, if his lawyer is so much as even awake.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by Avatard

It's all ridiculous.


Here's his camera. Do you think the cop knew he might be recorded?

I think the only thing that would have made it more obvious is if he had a sound man, with a boom mic riding two up with him.

Thrown out of court in 3 seconds, if his lawyer is so much as even awake.

I just had an opportunity to watch the video. Yes, it's incredibly ridiculous. I'm floored by the story to begin with - then to see how he was just cut in front of at a light and the guy comes flying out with a gun They say HE escalated it by backing up the bike... WHAT??!?!! Really?? What would YOU do if a car cut in front of you like that and a guy got out coming at you with a gun? I might do more than just back up slowly like he did.

The AUDIO isn't what makes this incredible.

[Avatard]

Actually, without the audio, this appears to be a carjacking...er, bike-jacking.

It's actually more damning, if you then know it's a cop.