Really? Which states? And who was convicted of illegally taping?
Militiamen Occupy Oregon Wildlife Office in Protest of Ranchers' Prison Terms
- Thread starter ndcent
- Start date
Really? Which states? And who was convicted of illegally taping?
It is in fact a crime in some states to audio record anyone without their permission. Some states have "one party consent", which requires any one of the recorded people (including the person doing the recording) to give permission. In no case can anyone audio record while they are not present (illegal wiretapping). Some states require all parties being recording to consent to it. If you are video recording with audio, you have to comply with these rules. Let me know which states prohibit video recording.
willbgood
New member
Twenty feet means that you cannot record from inside your car, as you are being interrogated by an officer, record his actions in any circumstance in which he is within 20 feet.
The actual purpose of Forums is discussion of ideas, the sharing of information, and the opportunity to share views, whether politically correct, offensive, or contrary to ones cultural views.
BrianSD_42
New member
Illinois for one. There are lots, lots of cases out there. The Federal Courts have been ruling some of these state laws unconstitutional THANKFULLY but it is slow going so far.
Woman receives $117,500 in settlement after being arrested for recording police - DIY Photography
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/08/still-dangerous-record-police-america/401795/
.
willbgood
New member
Here is a link and graphic on filming, although there appears to Supreme Court Law making it legal to film cops, they don't always abide and some cases you can expect and ass wooping.
I never go anywhere without a camera, and most of my friends don't either. I always inform LEO's that I am filming for their protection and mine. To date all have been pretty understanding about it. Of course I am always a gentlemen, and I never "cop" and an attitude with them, and I attempt to obey all of the 100 of thousands of laws, (intentional snicker here, as if I or anyone else can know them all). I also never talk to them, except as required by law, and insist on my 4th and 5th amendment rights. My retained attorney is on speed dial as well...once burned, forever warned.
I will mention here that in spite of the case law, certain states will still arrest you for filming and the onus is on you to prove your innocence and recover damages in long drawn out, expensive court cases. I avoid those states and do not trade with them if I can avoid it.
The Law and Filming Cops
I never go anywhere without a camera, and most of my friends don't either. I always inform LEO's that I am filming for their protection and mine. To date all have been pretty understanding about it. Of course I am always a gentlemen, and I never "cop" and an attitude with them, and I attempt to obey all of the 100 of thousands of laws, (intentional snicker here, as if I or anyone else can know them all). I also never talk to them, except as required by law, and insist on my 4th and 5th amendment rights. My retained attorney is on speed dial as well...once burned, forever warned.
I will mention here that in spite of the case law, certain states will still arrest you for filming and the onus is on you to prove your innocence and recover damages in long drawn out, expensive court cases. I avoid those states and do not trade with them if I can avoid it.
The Law and Filming Cops
Attachments
Last edited:
BrianSD_42
New member
It's a pretty sh$tty comparison to put ISIS and the Bundy's in the same league.
That's like HuffPo op-ed section mentality.
That's like HuffPo op-ed section mentality.
ndcent
New member
Meh, two groups believing fairy tales to justify aggression.
wadle5
New member
R.E.I. was actually notoriously known for shutting down off-road trails through Colorado and the like. Several overlanding groups have tried petitioning against them, because R.E.I. has several on staff to deny or push bills through in regards to land. So I wouldn't say they are innocent.
wadle5
New member
Last time I checked they are not sending women and children to blow up innocent by-standers? So again grasping at straws with this one.
nevada
Senior Member
since you are making that statement in this thread, you have to be talking ABOUT the current situation.
what makes them crazy? and how can you compare them to ISIS?
what aggression? who have they killed?
unless something changed over the weekend, its been a relatively peaceful "protest". there are even pictures of him shaking a sheriffs hand. doesn't look "crazy" or "aggressive" to me.
Jimmy_D
Member
So you're disputing the reporting in the link I posted. The actions taken by the federal agencies outlined in the article were reprinted from articles published in the Oregonian and The Capital Press (a weekly agricultural newspaper in Salem, Oregon). I'd love to see where you're obtaining the information used to challenge the accuracy of that reporting. Please include a link.
I would also urge everyone to take a look at THIS article in the Washington Post by an Oregon rancher reflecting the difficulties of dealing with the BLM on a regular basis. Again, if you have information to dispute his account, I'd like to see it.
The BLM's 2015 budget was $1.1 Billion dollars. It's 2016 budget is $1.2 Billion dollars. What would you consider adequate funding?
The reviews I've seen regarding State Agencies that manage state owned land versus Federal Agencies that manage federally owned land indicate that the states almost universally do a better job of managing the land under their control.
There are vast mineral interests in the western acreage under federal management but it's virtually impossible to gain the necessary permits to recover those minerals because of the power of the left wing environmental lobby in Washington. Take a look at Alaska. Last year every resident of Alaska received a check for $2,072.00 from the fund set up to give back a portion of the revenue stream generated from the state's mineral interests. If all the western states in question had control of the acreage in their respective states perhaps something similar would occur.
State agencies seem to be far more responsive to the wishes of state legislatures than federal agencies are to Congress, but you're more than welcome to continue deluding yourself into thinking the feds are, in fact, more responsive to the needs of the general public; like the VA is for the quality of healthcare for our Vets, or the Dept. of Education is for the quality of education for our kids.
Last edited:
nevada
Senior Member
Okanogan Farm Bureau leader: Treatment of Hammonds ‘outrageous, hypocritical’ - Livestock - Capital Press
something else to think about. not necessarily directly about this situation, but it is related.
something else to think about. not necessarily directly about this situation, but it is related.
20DYNAMITE07
New member
For another perspective... that's $1.71/acre under BLM management. It's not the bloated boogeyman you may think it is.
Jimmy_D
Member
I didn't offer an opinion on the size of the budget. I merely asked the person I was responding to what he thought the size of the budget ought to be since he alluded to the possibility that the BLM's annual budget might be insufficient. I can only assume from your post that you think the agency is well run with little to no waste.
The woman in the article was arrested for audio recording the officer, as at the time Illinois was one of those "two party" consent states (see my earlier post). At the time of the arrest, the officer told her he did not consent to being recorded, and she persisted, so he arrested her. Per your article, the entire state illegal wiretap law was ruled unconditional and has since been replaced by a new law that exempts the recording of public officials while performing their jobs. So it has never been illegal in Illinois to video record the police, only to audio record anyone, including the police, without their consent. At this time, it is not illegal to video or audio record the police in Illinois. Which brings me back to the original question, in what states are there law prohibiting the recording of police, other than the broader laws in some states that prohibit audio recording anyone without their consent? Are there any others?
willbgood
New member
Narrative of the media might be a tad off
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...irls-is-why-we-go-to-the-source/#.VpR4CxUrLb0
"OPINION – It’s a modern day version of the little boy who cried wolf.
What was hysterically reported as an “armed terrorist takeover” of a “federal building” in Oregon by “anti-government militants” looks quite different when one bothers to go directly to the source.
Of course, that requires a desire to know the truth that trumps our lust to destroy those with whom we disagree.
Having spoken with those who were actually there, it turns out that the so-called takeover consisted of the group of ranchers traveling to the unoccupied refuge facilities located miles from anywhere".
But I guess we no longer have a right to peaceably assemble...if the feds own it...
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/a...irls-is-why-we-go-to-the-source/#.VpR4CxUrLb0
"OPINION – It’s a modern day version of the little boy who cried wolf.
What was hysterically reported as an “armed terrorist takeover” of a “federal building” in Oregon by “anti-government militants” looks quite different when one bothers to go directly to the source.
Of course, that requires a desire to know the truth that trumps our lust to destroy those with whom we disagree.
Having spoken with those who were actually there, it turns out that the so-called takeover consisted of the group of ranchers traveling to the unoccupied refuge facilities located miles from anywhere".
But I guess we no longer have a right to peaceably assemble...if the feds own it...
20DYNAMITE07
New member
There are always efficiencies to be gained, having said that, yes I think the agency is well run given the resources available to them and their mission.
As for your WP article- that was an Op-Ed, and not an analysis or reporting. Just say'n. :usa2:
Jimmy_D
Member
I didn't indicate that it was anything other than one Oregon rancher's personal experience dealing with the BLM. There seems to be some doubt here regarding the validity of reported abuses by the BLM in Oregon relative to the Hammond case. This person's personal experience adds a good deal of credibility to those reports. If you choose to defend the BLM that's certainly your right but turning a blind eye to what I consider substantive reports of abuse is not something I'm willing to do. You're certainly welcome to provide us with tangible proof that the abuses listed were nothing other than fantasy.
