United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Colorado To Fine Cops $15,000 Every Time They Try To Stop You From Recording Them
Source:
Counter Current News
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/ ... -stop-you-from-recording-them/
Published: Feb 23, 2016
Author: John Vibes
Post Date: 2016-02-24 10:46:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1903
Comments: 24
After generations of corruption, the crimes committed by police in the line of duty are finally being exposed, now that most people have the ability to record police encounters with their cellphones. This new development has obviously infuriated police, and cops across the US have made many attempts to prevent themsel In Colorado, lawmakers are considering a fine for police officers who attempt to stop people from filming, or who attempt to destroy or delete the recording after the fact. A $15,000 fine is being considered for officers who attempt to violate a person’s rights in this way. The bill is currently filed as HB 15-1290. “Primarily, it came up as a result of the number of news reports we’ve been seeing about police officers telling people, ‘Give me your camera,’ or taking the data away, and that is unacceptable conduct,” Rep. Joe Salazar, one of the supporters of the bill, recently told reporters. “It takes a very special person to be a police officer. We want to honor them, but at the same time, we have a few bad apples who need to be aware that their conduct now has major, major consequences,” he added. The unfortunate thing about this bill is that the money would go right back to the government. Meanwhile, there are also states in the US where lawmakers are attempting to pass legislation that will actually ban citizens from filming the police. Late last year, Arizona State Senator John Kavanagh introduced Senate Bill 1054, which would make it effectively illegal to film police. Under the terms of the bill, filming police would only be legal under very specific circumstances, and would require citizens to stop filming if a police officer orders them. Although the Supreme Court has continued to uphold the right to film police, First Amendment violations seem to be on the increase as cameras become more commonplace. Police chiefs and police unions across the country have been unanimously opposed to citizens filming police, and have blamed YouTube for everything from rising crime rates to terrorism. In fact, police have begun using the term “YouTube effect” to describe the growing mistrust of law enforcement. However, cameras are simply capturing the reality of police encounters, and showing how officers actually behave when they interact with people. This article (Colorado Considering A $15,000 Fine For Police Officers Who Violate Recording Rights) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TrueActivist.com. John Vibes is an author and researcher who organizes a number of large events including the Free Your Mind Conference. He also has a publishing company where he offers a censorship free platform for both fiction and non-fiction writers. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can purchase his books, or get your own book published at his website www.JohnVibes.com. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Two words for that: Bull and Shit. Bystander's cameras start recording when the officer responds to the provocation, omitting everything leading up to it. "and showing how officers actually behave when they interact with people." Yeah, and those people are also filmed. Where's their right to privacy? Their right to due process? The video is posted to YouTube giving the impression the citizen is guilty of something. I don't want to be shown on YouTube being arrested -- especially if I'm later proven innocent.
Gee paulsen, since you are such a law-abiding, boot-licking serf cops would never arrest a badge bunny like you. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much It's the law. If you don't like it change it. Quit whining.
It doesn't matter what you want. It's the law. Get used to it.
Don't give him any ideas. Paulsen's not a big fan of freedom. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much That's what's happening: "Meanwhile, there are also states in the US where lawmakers are attempting to pass legislation that will actually ban citizens from filming the police."
Yeah - why not? According to government worshipers like you, that First Amendment thing is just a hindrance. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much They would have to change the constitution
to do that. If they propose doing it without amending the constitution.
Then they are traitors.
15K? What about public flogging or both?
Sure. Sounds fair. And if some teen plays the knockout game with an elderly person, knocking them unconscious with brain damage or even death, I think 6 months probation would be sufficient.
So you think the federal U.S. Constitution should apply to the states? Do you think that's what the Founders wanted -- a centralized government? Now who's the traitor?
Now who's the traitor? Freedom of the press should be in every state. Why do you oppose that? The constitution delegated some powers to the feds. The power to say freedom of speech and the press. Why don't you support the right to bear arms? It's in the second amendment.
It should be up to each state to define and regulate it. That's the way it was until 1931, in Near v Minnesota 283 U.S. 697, when the USSC decided that the 1st amendment applied to the states. "The constitution delegated some powers to the feds. The power to say freedom of speech and the press." Prior to 1931, the freedom of the press was protected against federal infringement only. States were free to infringe the press -- assuming their state constitutions allowed them to do so. "Why don't you support the right to bear arms? It's in the second amendment." I'm a card- carrying member of the NRA, have a collection of guns (my latest is the Beretta ARX-100), and go shooting regularly. What in the world makes you think I don't support the second amendment?
So you think the federal U.S. Constitution should apply to the states? Do you think that's what the Founders wanted -- a centralized government? Now who's the traitor? --- Mr Paulsen/white Misterwhite remains the traitor, -- one who ignores the 14th Amendment, wherein States are told quite clearly, again, that they cannot ignore the constitutional rights of US Citizens. Prior to the civil war, some States had the misguided opinion that they did not have to obey the Supreme Law of the Land, despite the clear words of Article VI, 2nd paragraph... Only idiots like misterwhite still think that way.
The many times you have posted here and at LP, and FR, -- that you believe States like California have the power to ban 'assault weapons', --- that's why.. Admit it, you're a chickenshit gungrabber.
Because you just said it should be up to the states to decide.
The 1st Amendment says Congress.
Who needs state constitutions or a federal government when we can impose a centralized national government by decree?
Prior to the USSC decision in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742), California had the power to ban any weapon they wanted, short of rendering their state militia ineffective. Saying that California had the power to ban assault-style weapons doesn't mean I support that. If you told me abortion is legal, does that mean you support abortion?
Prior to the USSC decision in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742), it WAS up to the states to decide. Why do you think each state had different gun laws? How did that happen, A K A Stone? Now, of course, the USSC gets to decide for everyone the definition of "arms", "to keep" and "to bear". And what do you think the next liberal court will do to the second amendment?
But that's better, don't you see? We'll have just one set of very conservative laws that will apply to everyone. That's how we'll beat those liberals. What could possibly go wrong?
The 1st Amendment says shut up. They didn't mean that. It was just a suggestion.
And the Assault Weapons laws are still in place.
The many times you have posted here and at LP, and FR, -- that you believe States like California have the power to ban 'assault weapons', --- that's why.. States have never had that power, according to Art VI, sec 2, -- and the 14th Amendment. In the past, you've argued voraciously for States having the power to ban weapons. -- Admit it, you support that power. Nice try at obfuscation. --We're discussing the prohibition of guns, and you favor all types of prohibitions...
"However, cameras are simply capturing the reality of police encounters"
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
I don't want to be shown on YouTube being arrested
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#3. To: misterwhite (#1)
Yeah, and those people are also filmed. Where's their right to privacy? Their right to due process?
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
I don't want to be shown on YouTube being arrested -- especially if I'm later proven innocent.
#5. To: A K A Stone (#3)
It's the law. If you don't like it change it.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: A K A Stone (#3)
"It's the law. If you don't like it change it."
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
"Meanwhile, there are also states in the US where lawmakers are attempting to pass legislation that will actually ban citizens from filming the police."
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#8. To: misterwhite (#6)
"Meanwhile, there are also states in the US where lawmakers are
attempting to pass legislation that will actually ban citizens from filming
the police."
#9. To: misterwhite (#1)
#10. To: A Pole (#9)
"15K? What about public flogging or both?"
#11. To: A K A Stone (#8)
"They would have to change the constitution to do that."
#12. To: misterwhite (#11)
So you think the federal U.S. Constitution should apply to the states? Do you think that's what the Founders wanted -- a centralized government?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Freedom of the press should be in every state.
Why do you oppose that?
#14. To: misterwhite, A K A Stone, y'all (#11)
A K A Stone ---- "They would have to change the constitution to do that."
#15. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13)
I'm a card- carrying member of the NRA, have a collection of guns (my latest is the Beretta ARX-100), and go shooting regularly. What in the world makes you think I don't support the second amendment?
#16. To: misterwhite (#13)
What in the world makes you think I don't support the second amendment?
#17. To: A K A Stone (#12)
Freedom of the press should be in every state.
#18. To: misterwhite (#11)
So you think the federal U.S. Constitution should apply to the states?
#19. To: tpaine (#15)
"that you believe States like California have the power to ban 'assault weapons', --- that's why."
#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)
"Because you just said it should be up to the states to decide."
#21. To: Roscoe (#18)
"Who needs state constitutions or a federal government when we can impose a centralized national government by decree?"
#22. To: Roscoe (#17)
"The 1st Amendment says Congress."
#23. To: misterwhite (#19)
Prior to the USSC decision in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742), California had the power to ban any weapon they wanted, short of rendering their state militia ineffective.
#24. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#19)
I'm a card- carrying member of the NRA, have a collection of guns (my latest is the Beretta ARX-100), and go shooting regularly. What in the world makes you think I don't support the second amendment?
Prior to the USSC decision in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742), California had the power to ban any weapon they wanted, short of rendering their state militia ineffective.
Saying that California had the power to ban assault-style weapons doesn't mean I support that.
If you told me abortion is legal, does that mean you support abortion?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]