Maryland Police Confiscate Biker's Computers After He Catches Questionable Activity On Helmet Cam
from the that's-not-how-this-is-supposed-to-work dept
sceptic writes:"A motorcyclist was showboating and recording himself doing it using a helmet cam. While stopped at a stop light, an off duty police officer stepped out of his (unmarked) car with his gun drawn. The rider received a citation and posted the whole episode on YouTube. 4 days later MD state police seized his computers and helmet cam and threatened to arrest him because it is illegal to record someone without their consent."You can see a long version of the events (without any sound) which shows the 3 minutes leading up to the incident here:
Or if you want to just see the part where the off duty cop pulls the gun (with sound), it's here:
The laws against audibly recording someone without their permission are not designed for situations like this one. They're designed for eavesdropping or things like recording phone calls. Using such a law to crack down on a guy showing an off-duty police officer totally overreacting to a traffic stop by drawing his weapon seems like a clear abuse of this sort of law.
However, now that we're reaching an age when everything anyone sees will soon be able to be recorded -- and for years, various research groups have been working on tools to make that easier -- these kinds of laws may need to be revisited. If many people are wearing devices that record everything they see and hear, suddenly such laws become a bit ridiculous -- even outside of the clear abuse above when such laws are being used to punish a whistleblower.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Involuntary recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Involuntary recording
HOWEVER, given that this officer (whether off-duty or not) was engaged in his role as a public servant, I think he should not be able to lay claim to any expectation of privacy. If a news reporter just happened to be standing nearby and captured the whole thing on a camera belonging to a news organization, there'd be no argument here.
That being said, I would understand that the video might be considered evidence, and that the police/prosecuter might need to use it as such.
On a related note, I think that private citizens captured on police dash-cams should be able to obtain a copy of the tape of their encounter with the officer, whether there is a dispute over what the tape shows or not.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Involuntary recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Involuntary recording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, yeah, major kudos for this guy posting this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public / Private
I can see where there may logical modifications, but I certainly hope we do not entirely do away with these laws.
While I can see sense in liberalizing the laws for video taken in public places, I would never want to lose a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in my home, for instance. That would play much better into the hands of tyrants than serve any socially useful purpose for perpetual life-documentary creation (an interesting phenomenon, but an entire waste of time IMO).
In any case, video of public employees (especially police) on the job should not be restricted. They ought to be accountable to the people they purportedly serve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public / Private
I agree but that is a totally different issue that then falls into laws regarding voyeurism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public / Private
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, in the cop's defense, the motorcycle was rolling backwards away from the cop as he got out, making it look at a glance like the cyclist might try to run for it. The gun was always pointed straight down and was put away immediately when the cycle stopped moving. That's a far cry from "totally overreacting".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think brandishing it counts as pointing it straight down, but it was pointed down for most of the time and his trigger disipline looked fine. But I think the point is: Why do you need to draw your gun on a speeder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That said, I don't think this cop needed to pull out a gun but I also haven't ever worked in law enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe he had a spring-loaded bolt launcher up his sleeve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Policeman = Moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also, 13%?! That's almost 100%!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In a civilised country the officer wouldn't even have had a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where a little while later when they do give cops guns they kill a poor _unarmed_ Brazilian guy and then try to cover it up?
Yep, sounds totally civilized to me.
Not that I have anything against the citizens of the UK, although their govt. and police leave a lot to be desired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I always get a chuckle when people like you say idiotic things like this. We never see you folks out there putting your lives on the line unarmed against people who want nothing more than to kill you, but you have no problem pontificating that others should be willing to do just that to protect you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
it's actually less dangerous for all concerned, including the cops. (no possibility of the criminal managing to disarm them and turn the gun on the police officer, the likelihood of which is one of the major reasons armed police officers end up shooting people, and the criminal in question, feeling less threatened, is less inclined to act violently in the first place.)
that said, such police officers are usually well trained in hand to hand combat, commonly carry batons of some description or other bits of equipment which can be easily made to serve the purpose, and do wear body armour when heading into potentially hazardous situations.
'course, it's a heck of a lot harder for random crazies to get hold of usable weapons in the first place, here, especially ones with any range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd love to see the Christchurch cops patrol South Central with a baton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, fine, whatever. What's the percentage of cops who stop cars that end up dead or injured or even just inconvenienced?
Because the whole dealio seems a bit over the top to this casual bystander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The cop had every right to pull this guy over he just did it vary, vary wrong. The cop just doesn't like that he got caught of camera this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some guy ran me off the road...
Okay he is opening his door, time to get out of here...
Holy crap he is drawing a gun!
Audio MIGHT make the video less... uh... frightful. Watching it without audio though, I mean... dang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only audio that we do not hear that may make a difference is a police siren. But, since the unmarked cop car did not have his lights on (no audio needed for that one), there would be no way to know he was the one making the noise or even if he was a real cop (I can get a siren for my car).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That also makes the audio in the long file even less important since there can be no audio that would be relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, that in-and-of itself is a commentary on modern-day policing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nobody, especially an officer, should expect anyone to realize you're an officer simply because you have a weapon and told someone to stop. They should be identifying themselves and presenting a badge first, until then you're just an aggressive stranger with a fatal weapon.
I probably would've bailed on this officer soon as I saw he was getting out with a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. Running from cops is not grounds for use of deadly force. I'm not an expert on the force spectrum used by police officers, but I question whether anything the guy did justified the drawing of the officer's gun. I speculate that, in lieu of a uniform and badge, the officer drew his gun in order to have a symbol of authority that would induce compliance.
2. The cop drew his gun and began giving orders before he identified himself as an officer. If I had been the cyclist, I would have believed that I was about to be murdered. If the motorcyclist had been armed (as many motorcyclists are), this situation could have ended very differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A cop with no badge, no car, no markings, no uniform is not a cop. ANYONE can walk up with a gun and say "Police", until you prove that, I am not listening...it is called self preservation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It can be. According to the Supreme Court, use of deadly force on a fleeing felon can be justified if the police can articulate that the person just committed a violent crime and there's a high likelihood that he/she will present a continuing threat to public safety if not stopped.
That said, no cop with half a brain is going to risk shooting a fleeing suspect in the back and hope he can meet that standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Jesus fucking christ on a god damn pogo stick. The cop is lucky the guy didn't have a concealed carry permit. Start running at someone with a gun in plain clothes BEFORE you identify yourself as police is asking to get yourself shot.
Now if the cop were in uniform, or showed a badge, or said "state police" when he opened his door, or had lights on the car, or somehow identified himself as a cop then it would be a different story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's see, a civilian car cuts you off and the civilian driver jumps out of the vehicle with a gun, yelling at you. Yeah, I'd try to get the hell out of there too!
The officer pulled his gun, unprovoked, and he didn't even bother to mention that he was an officer until well after the fact. I'm no law enforcement officer, but it's hard to believe that is standard procedure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm a biker too. Well trained, and I ride a cruiser so I don't do the "showboating" thing so much, but drivers get MAD sometimes and it's scary when you don't have a cage around you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The cop pulled a gun and approached the bike. The words state police should have been the first words out of his mouth but they were not. AS SOON as he said state police the guy stopped...
Also, the case was thrown out by the judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Why is it the law has to change? If it was me walking down the street or eating at an ice cream shoppe, why is it OK for him to violate my privacy just becasue it is easy to do with technology?
Maybe the cop should be thrown off the force and the guy arrested? I am sure he has video of lots of folks on their without their direct consent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Careful of those people with cameras! You know they can steal your soul with those!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Because you don't have any privacy walking down the street or eating at an ice cream shoppe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
My live should be private unless 'I' choose to make it public. My conset should be required to be recorded or video taped. This sort of thing is just another step down the slope to 1984.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
That's why you, again, have no privacy after you chose to walk down a public street or eat at a public ice cream shoppe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
But John...you didn't quote anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
I agree 100%, but you're not using good logic. By going into public you agree to be visible to the public. If you want privacy then stay in the privacy of your own home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
But nether does the cop, and that's Known Coward's point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
The points that I am trying to make are
1. That 'I' am not a public figure and have a right to free assembly and not to have my whereabouts tracked without a reasonable suspision of my wrong doing, or a warrent. A public figure has sacrificed that right, I have not. Personally i believe the cop as a public employee can be taped by the populous at large or by a cam in his car as part of the oversite of his duty by his employers, (the people).
More importantly
2. Just becasue a technology makes it easy to do things, does not mean doing those things should be legal. Again in the instant case i think the taping is OK, but if he were taping me eating ice cream in the ice cream shoppe without MY consent. I think he should be criminally sanctioned. The fact that the taping can easily be done is not a valid reason to make it legal.
Hopefully i have explained myself better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Your house and home is where your privacy starts and ends at for the most part. Anything that you do in your car (for example) that can be viewed by the public at large isn't considered private. (Like waiting a stop light and looking to your right and left, seeing someone shaving in their car or singing to themselves. your only real protection is if you have anything in your car that's not in public view like a glove box).
Walking down the street, and you're not expected to be able to reserve any rights of privacy unless it's on your being. (Like walking around with a cell phone, your texts are viewable to the public if they can see it clearly.) In a shop, your privacy is subject to the shop's owners. once again, unless it's something on your on being, it's not up to debate since it's not your house and home.
On the other end of the scale, yes, just because you can, doesn't mean you should tape everyone. Just because you can see what a person is typing and texting, doesn't give you the right to go over a stranger's shoulder and read out loud their messages. We have laws to try and extend privacy into public locations, but for the most part, the social norms are enough of a deterrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Because of this logic, this appears to be a retribution action from the law-enforcement agency. (IMHO)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
"Why is it the law has to change? If it was me walking down the street or eating at an ice cream shoppe, why is it OK for him to violate my privacy just becasue it is easy to do with technology??
If you are walking down the street in public, you know where everyone can see you in Public view, you really can't expect too much privacy. If you want privacy you should probably not go out in public . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it that it is the law is wrong
Why is it the law has to change? "
To ask the question is to answer it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Badge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Badge
Just because you are a police officer does not mean people will automatically know this. If you are in uniform, or have you badge placed prominently (not under your pull-over) this can also tip people off. Pulling out a gun also works, but depending on gun laws in the area can also mean: psychopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Badge
Ironically, what happened here reminds me of something that happened in my neighborhood recently. A guy in a van stopped his truck suddenly in front of a neighbor of mine in the early evening. He jumped out with a gun mugged my neighbor and took off.
That is what I will assume is happening if a guy jumps out of his car with a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Badge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helmet Cams
Ahem, every one of those are easy to see, Did he have to have a highly pronounced warming "recording in progress" on him as well?
I've personaly invested in a few gadgets just for traffic stops as well, a dash cam (that can see my speed), and a driver window cam (to see whos talking to me) and just to be safe the few times I get pulled over the first thing out of my mouth is "this conversation is being recorded".
Once a cop got really mad at that and asked me to stop and where the tape was, he felt even worse when he found out it was being saved "On the Internet".
Sadly some states have caselaw on the books that says "traffic stops are not public". I am unsure how far up cases like that have gone but I doubt anything has gotten to a state court. As such you basicly have to treet everything as a 2 party state (both need to know) or risk a charge like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way to far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way to far
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
only when its a cop is it illegal LOL
like was this biker armed
did he threaten with any objects
NOPE
absolutely no reason to pull a gun
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: only when its a cop is it illegal LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He should have identified himself first thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More to story?
What's the issue going on there? Seems like there's more to this story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More to story?
Still doesn't excuse the badge or "I'm a state patrol officer" being the first things the biker sees/hears. Prior to that it would look like a jacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Typical TAM lame response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Typical TAM lame response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, keep respecting others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The biker in question may have been engaged in nefarious activities, but that does not excuse the wild behavior exhibited by the cop. He needed to act more reasonably and should be held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
May be so. Does not make it legal.
In NJ it is flatly illegal to stop using unmarked cars. Guess why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's just avoid this one now. We'll just get off-topic in a constant loop of:
"Oh boy, another TAM troll post"
"Hi Mike"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So we can arrest/harass/threaten people with a gun now if we think they are intending to break the law? Which law? Speeding? Jay walking? Right turn on red?
How do you prove intent to break the law if he didn't actually break the law?
What horrendous crime did this motorcyclist commit that an off duty cop felt the need to pull him over (without the benefit of a police car, police lights and siren) and pull his gun on him? Did he cause an accident? Did he run over three nuns visiting an orphanage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As for the biker, he was driving recklessly. That put himself and others in danger. He absolutely deserved to be pulled over...By a uniformed police officer...with his lights on...who announces himself...and has a conspicuous badge...without the need to draw a weapon upon an unarmed civilian...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He was driving on the road, yes. Of course he was on his motocycle. Nobody gets out of their car and stands next to it at every light in case a plain-clothes officer decides to draw their weapon on them.
"And as I looked him in the eyes, I could tell he was going to run me over."
"How could you tell?"
"His bike was idle and was rolling backwards."
Also, please use the shift key TAM. I know no caps is part of the whole troll ensemble, but you're posting more seriously on this thread than others...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He would be bent over the car door eating my front tire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dash board cams
This is seems like a case where a cop made a bad call in exicution but was doing what he thought was in the best intrest of the public good. He did not shoot the guy, he was just protecting himself. IMHO he does not look like he is trying to intimidate the guy or he would have held the gun on him longer and in a more threating manner so i conclude that he is doing what he is trained and keeping as safe as possible but; he ABSOULTELY should have made that he was a police officer more than evident for the reason Anonymous Coward said about a pulling a CCL'ed weapon on. A faster draw is all it takes to lose your life and not announcing his title was a big mistake and i would put money on it that he wil be atht eh least repremanded for it b/c he put his and the riders life in danger; and by that i mean the rider could defend him self by pulling a wepon and be shot by the officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
from the officer's point of view...
I hope that the judge (or jury if it gets that far) will take the action of the motorcyclist and the action of the cop and negate them, and reduce the entire situation to speeding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Person 2: Gets out of car and draws small firearm.
To almost any person, Person 1 is more likely to be a police officer and Person 2 is more likely to be a car-jacker. Of course, it could also be a case of impersonation or improper announcement (as it is here), but that's not the issue at hand. The issue is: when someone cuts you off and draws a weapon, do you think, Gee, this must be an off-duty police officer. Hell no! You're thinking, Holy crap! Who is this guy and why does he have a gun drawn? And you're thinking that because usually police announce themselves to avoid this kind of confusion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some states avoid this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some states avoid this
Unless, that is, the bullets would somehow stop the bike from hitting him after the biker decided to sprint.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some states avoid this
MD is a "May Issue" state. That means you may get a CCL if and only if the Chief of the MD State Police approves it.
In practice that means politically connected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some states avoid this
...or you are a hard core criminal.
It would not surprise me if criminals with guns outnumbered cops 20:1 in any metro area.
Oh, and don't forget another factor: you are not allowed to work as policeman if your IQ is higher then the door handle.
Have you ever heard of a cop with PhD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting to note:
I've been pulled over before, and at no time was I greeted with "Sir, do I have your permission to record this encounter, with audio?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding the confiscation of his computers, that might be justified if there was an investigation to see if this guy had lots of other videos of high speed showboating, evidence that might be relevant when he goes to court. I don't buy the argument about permission to videotape though, that is no reason to take the stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He obviously didn't have the siren on, you can clearly hear no siren in the video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is he is charged with an illegal recording for having an officer walk into his video tape. They seized his property as a result. If you cannot ever record an officer, you will always be at a disadvantage in any issue involving excessive force (or similar). There is no way to hold public officials (including police) accountable for their actions, b/c you'll never be able to directly prove what actually happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
double standard
So now we have the cops saving "invasion of privacy" and all I have to say is. you're in a public place and if you weren't doing anything wrong then why do you care. kind of sucks when the shoe is on the other foot..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's more to the story
:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.S.
I despise police abuse as well as abuses to citizens privacy but this situation just doesn't apply. Calling this situation abuse just draws attention away from real cases of abuse and weakens the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another example of Cops Gone Wild
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiots
Several things here:
1) The unmarked car pulls in front of the bike AFTER the bike has pulled over (probably pulled over for the MARKED car right behind him).
2) The officer did not EXIT the car with the weapon, in fact he was fully out of the car and had already issued the order to "get off the motorcycle." BEFORE he pulled the weapon, and AFTER the bike starts backing up.
3) The weapon was not pulled ON the guy, but placed at the ready AFTER the guy made an attempt to EVADE the officer. At no point was the guy threatened with the weapon or even was the weapon pointed at him.
For the IdIOTS that think this guy even had time to pull a weapon "if he had one," your ignorance shines. The motorcyclist would have been dead with several rounds center mass the moment his hands reach for a weapon, and with gloves on he had ZERO chance of even attempting to use one.
This officers actions were JUSTFIED, and the need to identify himself wasn't even a requirement in this case because the uniformed officers were already on scene and the motorcyclist had absolutely no reason to think it was anything other than a traffic stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
2) He was not an officer at the time he issued the order, nor was he an officer at the time he drew his weapon. He was an officer at the point which he presented his badge. That's how you know someone is telling the truth when they say, "I'm a police officer."
3) This is correct. He never pointed the weapon at the biker or had it leveled above the biker's mid-section (any accidental shot would not likely have been lethal even if it were aimed at the biker...which it wasn't). You can also see that his finger is not poking through the guard, meaning his trigger discipline was correct. People who said he pointed his gun at the biker were incorrect. However, claiming he drew the weapon on the biker is not incorrect. It's pretty obvious he wasn't just taking it out to inspect it himself. He drew it as a deterent to prevent the biker from attempting an escape. When you draw a gun on someone, you are making a statement; something to the effect of, "If you don't do what I say, I will shoot you."
4) Yes, the people who claimed they would have shot him would have to be quick-draw champions to not take 2 in the chest. The guy already had his gun out and ready (Rule 1: always treat a gun as if it is loaded...even when the other guy is holding it). There is no way a normal person could have shot this guy first unless they were already taking their gun out the moment the door opened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiots
Rolling slowly backwards is evading now? You have great skill for twisting words and inserting hyperbole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the story here is that, in addition to having been pulled over (justifiably, from the looks of the video) in a manner that appears unjustified (again, judging from the video), the biker is being charged with violating Maryland "wiretapping" laws. That's what makes this case different (and frankly, a lot more relevant to Techdirt).
If the Youtube videos are the basis for the wiretapping charge, then the case ought to be thrown out (and whichever state's attorney signed off on the case ought to be ashamed). Maryland's law does not apply to video-only recordings, and only applies to audio recordings of private conversations made without consent. And asserting that the interaction captured in the video is a "private conversation" would not pass the laugh test. You can brush up on what Maryland's own AG's office thinks of its wiretapping law here:
http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf
But maybe there's more to the wiretapping charge. Did the biker record other private conversations not shown on the video? Has been been using the thing as a nanny cam at his house or something? If so, then maybe there's something else that supports the wiretap charge. But the Youtube videos don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How did they know?
> police show up a few days later with a warrant for four computers,
> two laptops and his camera.
Even more disturbing... how did the police know how many computers (and whether they were laptops vs desktops) the guy had before they got to his house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How did they know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That scum biker should have been shot...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's only two possibilities here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the time it took him to do that, I could have pulled my own handgun and shot him thinking that I was being attacked.
GET OFF THE MOTORCYCLE
GET OFF THE MOTORCYCLE
GET OFF THE...
POP, POP, POP
One dead moron cop and video that proves he never identified himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why the news crews covering Times Square on New Year's Eve don't need signed consent forms by everybody in camera range.
You do NOT have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" on a public highway.
Particularly if you get out of your car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What law is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What law is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic, but standard, tactic - arrest those who videotape
This is part of a larger trend in which citizens’ impulse to record public events is treated as criminal behavior by law enforcement officials. Blogs such as War on Photography and Photography is Not a Crime pick this theme up.
Its ironic that laws made to protect the public from state intrusion, are being turned to protect the state from scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shameless
Why can't people accept responsibility for their actions? It never ceases to amaze me at the lengths that people will go to avoid simply apologizing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drawn firearm???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the Police Officer'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the Police Officer's name?
We need to know who the Police Officer is. This officer is clearly a danger to society. When he abuses others it may be important for their defense in court to be able to show this tape and show the Officer is a rogue cop. WHAT IS THE OFFICER'S NAME. it's important to public safety that this Officer is exposed for what he is before he can damage large numbers of people. We can't let these monsters run free anonymously in society with massive police power. It isn't safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If a random guy got out of an unmarked car and drew on me, your damn right Id run. 90% of people abducted at gunpoint end up murdered, hell ive even seen police warn people in my area NOT to pull over for unmarked vehicles after a rash of robberies by a guy impersonating a police officer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
officer in the wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]