Man Faces Life In Jail For Recording Police

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Yes actually a company can let anyone go if they dont agree with something they posted on Facebook or the like. It obviously goes against the first ammendment, but it happens on a daily basis. It most recently happend to a school teacher that called her students idiots or something like that. Look I dont expect you as a police officer to quote the constitution as your bible everytime you make a traffic stop. I do expect you to have atleast read the constitution that you swore an oath to though. Of course you are going to write tickets, but I expect officers to understand that that isnt their primary role as a public servant. I expect you to stand up against laws that are unconstitutional and have a voice in your community against such laws. Ive seen too many officers use common tactics that play on the ignorance of the people of this country forcing them to waive their rights for searches, etc. Im not anti police but I am against the idea that officers are above the laws they enforce and this story is a prime example of how we are moving towards that type of system. Officers should be reminded that they are public servants before the authority and that the very badge they hold is given to them by the people of this nation and not the politians.

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

This statement made me smile...I have a Bachelor's degree, Im probably overpaid for being a cop, and I have a very good understanding of the laws I enforce...

This statement made me smile. So you have a degree in propaganda from some government funded re-educatation... er ah university... And you still enforce unconstitutional laws on people who have not harmed anyone... Sigh!

Honestly man....I know of a single corrupt cop and he was fired immediately. Im not saying there are some "good ol boy" systems out there where they watch each others back on anything, but it is not as bad as you are making it seem.

So you think your personal bubble is an accurate portrayal of what goes on around the state and country and not the other way around?

But its a job man...I have to enforce laws I don't agree with it...that doesnt make me corrupt or brain washed....think of everything you do in the job you have that you don't want to do...it's part of the job!

Yes it does make you corrupt and brain washed for you to justify harming and violating the rights of people who have harmed no one just because some group of legislators and prosecutors say so. By your logic the the Nazi death camp guards were justified since after all they were just doing their jobs. Yes I am comparing police to nazi death camp guards because it is the same principle at work here. You must be brain washed to enforce laws you know are wrong and harm people. But I guess the money is to good for you to live up to what you claim are your higher principles. You would have arrested this gentleman for wielding a camera for god sake and watch him face life in prison and say hey I don't like it but it's the law and I have to enforce it no matter who it harms... Not corrupt or brain washed?... Take a good hard look my friend! You are responsible for your actions and the job you choose to do regardless. The nazi death camp guards probably would have been killed had the refused to do thier job. All you have to do is quit yours to stop harming people while pretending to yourself you are not responsible. Tyranny is enabled by those who enforce it. The enforcer is just as guilty as those who decree it!

Jesus lol..nothing I say will please you...fine lets do this...get rid of all authority....im ok with that....call me afterwards when you change your mind.

edit: and im curious what your experience in law is? or your education?

edit on 1-9-2011 by cosmicexplorer because: (no reason given)

Well, hawkiye does have a point about how the Nazis just claimed they were only doing their job when it came to testifying in the Nuremberg trials. That is really true as far as I know. What ultimately separates us from the nazi police state? Our police probably don't walk up and down the trains asking to see our papers, at least not yet....but I think that is coming. I think I heard of some new searches going on at train and bus stations looking for terrorists, so in the larger scope of it, what's the difference? Especially when the admin turns its attention to Tea Party Patriots in Brooks bros clothes?

Originally posted by e11888
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

Yes actually a company can let anyone go if they dont agree with something they posted on Facebook or the like. It most recently happend to a school teacher that called her students idiots or something like that. Look I dont expect you as a police officer to quote the constitution as your bible everytime you make a traffic stop. I do expect you to have atleast read the constitution that you swore an oath to though. Of course you are going to write tickets, but I expect officers to understand that that isnt their primary role as a public servant. Ive seen too many officers use common tactics that play on the ignorance of the people of this country forcing them to waive their rights for searches, etc. Im not anti police but I am against the idea that officers are above the laws they enforce and this story is a prime example of how we are moving towards that type of system. Officers should be reminded that they are public servants before the authority and that the very badge they hold is given to them by the people of this nation and not the politians.

I understand...many officers do indeed use common tactics that play on the ignorance of people...ive seen it many times. I don't agree with it at all....

Like I said...this would fall more on the S/A than it should on the officer...Cops make arrests...a judge reviews the case in a prelimanary hearing to see if there is probable cause for an arrest...if there isn't...the case would be dropped. so this case is more about the prosecutors than the police.

Why wasn't the guy allowed a court reporter for his case?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

This statement made me smile...I have a Bachelor's degree, Im probably overpaid for being a cop, and I have a very good understanding of the laws I enforce...

This statement made me smile. So you have a degree in propaganda from some government funded re-educatation... er ah university... And you still enforce unconstitutional laws on people who have not harmed anyone... Sigh!

Honestly man....I know of a single corrupt cop and he was fired immediately. Im not saying there are some "good ol boy" systems out there where they watch each others back on anything, but it is not as bad as you are making it seem.

So you think your personal bubble is an accurate portrayal of what goes on around the state and country and not the other way around?

But its a job man...I have to enforce laws I don't agree with it...that doesnt make me corrupt or brain washed....think of everything you do in the job you have that you don't want to do...it's part of the job!

Yes it does make you corrupt and brain washed for you to justify harming and violating the rights of people who have harmed no one just because some group of legislators and prosecutors say so. By your logic the the Nazi death camp guards were justified since after all they were just doing their jobs. Yes I am comparing police to nazi death camp guards because it is the same principle at work here. You must be brain washed to enforce laws you know are wrong and harm people. But I guess the money is to good for you to live up to what you claim are your higher principles. You would have arrested this gentleman for wielding a camera for god sake and watch him face life in prison and say hey I don't like it but it's the law and I have to enforce it no matter who it harms... Not corrupt or brain washed?... Take a good hard look my friend! You are responsible for your actions and the job you choose to do regardless. The nazi death camp guards probably would have been killed had the refused to do thier job. All you have to do is quit yours to stop harming people while pretending to yourself you are not responsible. Tyranny is enabled by those who enforce it. The enforcer is just as guilty as those who decree it!

Jesus lol..nothing I say will please you...fine lets do this...get rid of all authority....im ok with that....call me afterwards when you change your mind.

edit: and im curious what your experience in law is? or your education?

edit on 1-9-2011 by cosmicexplorer because: (no reason given)

Well, hawkiye does have a point about how the Nazis just claimed they were only doing their job when it came to testifying in the Nuremberg trials. That is really true as far as I know. What ultimately separates us from the nazi police state? Our police probably don't walk up and down the trains asking to see our papers, at least not yet....but I think that is coming. I think I heard of some new searches going on at train and bus stations looking for terrorists, so in the larger scope of it, what's the difference?

Comparing us to nazi's is pretty rough statement lol...I lived in Germany for 3 years...part military part civilian...ive talked with many people and at once was married to a german woman. Those people are deeply embarassed about their past. The older generation doesn't want to talk about it and the younger generation has been bred to "make love, not war"....I loved it there.

Their are so many differences guys...if you really think police are like nazis than i feel lost for society. Nazi's murdered, raped, and pillaged. I have done none of those...and id say just like any profession there are probably 2% of the population that is criminal...from cops to teachers to bread makers.

When the law changes...I'll enforce the law...if I see laws that I think are completely unjust...I will change professions.

I should have been a fireman haha

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Why wasn't the guy allowed a court reporter for his case?

i dont know...wish i did...that im sure will be brought up by his attorneys i would hope

You know if the jury feels the way most of you do than there wont be an issue....its not a perfect system i know but its what we got for now.

reply to post by hawkiye


No such right in the bill of rights, I'm afraid.

Citizens do not have a right to have video tape of dealings with public officials. This is a smart thing to do, but is by no means a right.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


I didn't know about the felony punch. Of course because I never went there....I would have to be defending my life....But of course, cops put their lives on the line every day.

This is becoming more and more common. My question is, if this violates wiretapping laws, then explain traffic cameras, security cameras that expose public areas. Cameras are everywhere. The constitution is intended to protect the people from the government not protect the government from the people. Why are they immune to wiretapping laws? That is tantamount to saying it's illegal for the "public" to drive intoxicated but big brother is allowed to. I don't buy it. They need to be called on this crap and our damned representatives that WE put into office need to stand up and take notice of these things.

Originally posted by axslinger
This is becoming more and more common. My question is, if this violates wiretapping laws, then explain traffic cameras, security cameras that expose public areas. Cameras are everywhere. The constitution is intended to protect the people from the government not protect the government from the people. Why are they immune to wiretapping laws? That is tantamount to saying it's illegal for the "public" to drive intoxicated but big brother is allowed to. I don't buy it. They need to be called on this crap and our damned representatives that WE put into office need to stand up and take notice of these things.

Yes, that's what I was getting at with one of my posts. You put it more succinctly than I did.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by cosmicexplorer

 

I didn't know about the felony punch. Of course because I never went there....I would have to be defending my life....

I was trying to hopefully put some stuff into context...they took that safety net from us...you know why I think they changed that law? Probably cause a group of cops were charging felonies agg. battery on every little time they got bumped by a suspect...which I don't think is right...but instead the lawmakers do a knee jerk reaction and we end up with less safety for cops.

It may end up being simliar with this...there is a time to really push certain laws...idk if this is one of them..but it happened nevertheless. The law exists and he broke it...I dont see any fault on the cops...maybe the lawmakers but not the cops.

Bad mouthing your employer online is NOT a first amendment right.

You typically sign a document when you start with an employer that you will act professionally and in accordance with company policy at all times when you are representing the company.

Like it or not, when you post something about your employer online, you are doing so as an employee of the company, and therefore as a representative.

Therefore, these sorts of postings can be used against you in disciplinary actions, first amendment rights or not.

Let me get this straight. From the video, it said the cop got two years for killing the civilian, San Francisco I believe it was. That kid was unarmed, do I recall that correctly?

Two years for killing a unarmed(assumption but I'm pretty sure he wasn't holding)civilian yet 75 for videotaping cops.

It's plain to see this country is broken.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Bad mouthing your employer online is NOT a first amendment right.

You typically sign a document when you start with an employer that you will act professionally and in accordance with company policy at all times when you are representing the company.

Like it or not, when you post something about your employer online, you are doing so as an employee of the company, and therefore as a representative.

Therefore, these sorts of postings can be used against you in disciplinary actions, first amendment rights or not.

right..im was saying above that where i work..we cant even have a dirty joke online posted by us...anything of the sort...no one has been in trouble yet but the way the policy reads...its a very subjective area of what would be immoral or innapropriate....it is something my work has made and am aware its not an amendment right however...I believe it is put into place because public service employees should be held to a higher standard.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


Me? I don't think police are like Nazis, but I do think we are veering into shady territory with video cameras everywhere and monitors that can tell how many miles you were going between one toll booth and the next and voila you get a speeding ticket in the mail, and eyes in the sky and so on. I read George Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR when I was about 15 and it had a very profound impact on me. I have been watching our country change since the mid to late 70's. And when our govt calls its civilians right wing extremists and starts having the FBI scan rallies and take pictures of the attendees( likely to be used at a later date) because those civilians don't agree with their agenda, we are definitely on the wrong course. It should be obvious that a group of ordinary citizens concerned about the Totalitarian Socialist nightmare we are seeing form right before our very eyes are villified by that very group, something is not right with this.
This is why people come to sites like this, because all is not right. I know you think that may be over the top, but I've been watching it develop since I was 15.

reply to post by cosmicexplorer

Jesus lol..nothing I say will please you...fine lets do this...get rid of all authority....im ok with that....call me afterwards when you change your mind. edit: and im curious what your experience in law is? or your education?

Pretty much the response I expected. You are too brain washed to even consider that you are responsible for your actions even on the job. Of course I can't be pleased. Why in the world would I be pleased with those who enforce tyranny and then try to brush it off as just doing thier job??? No one is more blind then those who refuse to see. YOU HARM PEOPLE WHO HAVE HARMED NO ONE you do it every day and you assuage your conscious by repeating the mantra I am just doing my job even though I don't like the laws. Grow up and take a good hard look in the mirror if you're man enough.

And don't worry I will never call you or any cop. There is no situation so bad that calling the cops can't make it worse! I can protect myself or hire private protection and get much more for my money then the taxes stolen from me at gun point. You a-holes will even come and point guns at me and put me out of my house etc if I refuse to have the fruits of my labors stolen by your masters...

Why arent the police ever using their resources to go after the real criminals of today? Why are you harassing an old man who has NEVER done anything wrong? What's the point of all of this? It amazes me that our govt allows sh.it like this to happen, it amazes me that their job is to serve the people and they always seem to forget that... I truly hope this man gets off, I'm glad he isnt willing to plea bargain with these dip SH*TS....

Police need to be held accountable for their actions, we SHOULD be able to videotape/record them doing their jobs. What do they have to hide? The BS of it all is that if you dont have proof like a recording and you go to court, its your word against theirs, and 99% of the time the courts will side with the police officers word...

reply to post by cosmicexplorer


ill try to find the source for my claim but the thing is he wasent recording audio of a police police officer(ie a beat cop detective iad etc) but a judge cop (i guess prosecutors etc are leo's as well) and they were the ones making the arrest after he decided to record his own court procedings,in references to what i call a court reporter i belive that is there offical titie but there dutys are to pretty much write down evey thing that happend in the court as a record and that in this mans case one was not provided there for he did it on his own(lawyer could have most likely fixed the situation better)what i want to know is on what grounds he was denied said reporter (edit he recoreded them and numerious times but the only one being questioned is the court one i belive)

reason.com...

"Michael Allison, a 41-year-old backyard mechanic from southeastern Illinois, faces up to 75 years in prison for an act most people don’t realize is a crime: recording public officials.

Allison lives in Bridgeport, Illinois, and often spends time at his mother’s house in Robinson, one county to the north. Both towns have abandoned property (or “eyesore”) ordinances prohibiting the parking of inoperable or unregistered vehicles on private property except in enclosed garages. These rules place a substantial burden on hobbyists like Allison; to obey the law he must either build a garage—which he says isn’t an option, given his property and his income—or register, plate, and pay insurance on every car he fixes up, even though he never drives them on public roads. So Allison kept working on his cars, and the city of Bridgeport kept impounding them: in 2001, 2003, and 2005.

In 2007 Allison filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging the law was a violation of his civil rights and a scheme to collect revenue through impound fees. He then resumed tinkering with unregistered vehicles in his mother’s driveway in Robinson. By Allison’s account, police officers in Robinson began harassing him with threats of fines or arrest for violating that town’s ordinance, though Allison alleges the harassment was personal—retaliation for his lawsuit back in Bridgeport. That’s when he began recording his conversations with cops.

In late 2008, Allison went to the Robinson police station, tape recorder in hand, and asked the chief to tell his officers either to name the law he was violating and issue him a citation or leave him alone. Not long after, two Robinson police officers showed up at his mother’s property and, while he was working on his mother’s car in her driveway, wrote Allison a citation for violating the eyesore ordinance. Allison openly recorded the conversation with a digital recorder. A court date was scheduled for January 2010.

The day before the trial, Allison went to the Crawford County Courthouse to request a court reporter for the proceedings. “If they were going to convict me of this bogus ordinance violation, I wanted to be sure there was a record of it for my lawsuit,” he says. As he spoke with Crawford County Circuit Court Clerk Angela Reinoehl, Allison showed her his digital recorder, although he says in this instance he wasn’t recording. “I held out the tape recorder to make it clear that if they weren’t going to make a record of this ridiculous farce, I was going to make sure I had one,” he says.

Reinoehl denied the request, but Allison’s promise to record the proceedings apparently came through loud and clear. Just after he walked through the courthouse door the next day, Allison says Crawford County Circuit Court Judge Kimbara Harrell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Harrell then asked him if it was turned on. Allison said it was. Harrell then informed the defendant that he was in violation of the Illinois wiretapping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record someone without his consent. “You violated my right to privacy,” the judge said.

Allison responded that he had no idea it was illegal to record public officials during the course of their work, that there was no sign or notice barring tape recorders in the courtroom, and that he brought one only because his request for a court reporter had been denied. No matter: After Harrell found him guilty of violating the car ordinance, Allison, who had no prior criminal record, was hit with five counts of wiretapping, each punishable by four to 15 years in prison. Harrell threw him in jail, setting bail at $35,000." from above source and this a summary of one of the 6 pages very informative