6 ms·

Is it safe to act upon this ruling, or should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? Do what they tell you. "You can beat the rap, but you can

Is it safe to act upon this ruling, or should you just do what the police tell you to do regardless? Do what they tell you. "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride." However, once you're out of immediate danger, talk to a lawyer. You would probably have standing for a §1983 lawsuit.

jMyles 10y ago
I think this is awful advice. The second you turn your camera off, you lose your side of the story. If you're seriously nervous and unsure about what to do, ask for a supervisor. In my experience, they'll typically tell other offices to cool it with the cameraphobia crap. But never turn your camera off if you think you're a suspect. What good can it possibly do?
- AlexCoventry 10y ago
  If you have a record of a government official ordering you under the color of law to turn it off, you have all the story you need.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    You really don't, and if they want to take it away by force record that.
  - djsumdog 10y ago
    That's even more reason to no stop filming ...
- crusso 10y ago
  How often are you in confrontational encounters with the police?
  - jMyles 10y ago
    These days? Rarely. But I have had a number of positions which have required me to have encounters (in some cases documented) with police, and although I was (I believe in every single case) professional and courteous, I have occasionally interacted with police officers who weren't. Additionally, I have (like pretty much everybody) had chance encounters with police, and I have chosen to record these, without exception. Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232
    - wfunction 10y ago
      > Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): > https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232 I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the video, I wanted to let you know that you definitely do sound like a smart aleck when talking to officers (e.g. "well, we both know that in the real world there is such a thing"... or, "well, fundamentally, I...")... maybe you weren't "disrespectful" in your choice of words, but I can't say the same about your tone and approach. It seems like you're willing to give officers as hard a time as possible just because it's not outright illegal. Don't expect a nice reaction when you do that. They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.
      - MagnumOpus 10y ago
        You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here.
        wfunction 10y ago
        > You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here. That's not what I was saying... but I'm not going to waste my time responding to strawman arguments. Be my guest and keep exercising your right to be a jerk to everyone around you.
- morganvachon 10y ago
  There's a concept in law enforcement called a "lawful order", which is when a police officer orders you to do something and if you don't comply, he can arrest you for obstruction. The thing is, the order must truly be lawful; he can't order you to do something illegal, and he can't order you to (for example) take off your clothes or give him your money. Typically a lawful order will be something like during a domestic dispute, ordering one of the parties to find somewhere else to stay for the night and not to return home for a certain number of hours (a "cooling off" period). This avoids an arrest for domestic violence, which carries harsh repercussions even if the aggressor is found not guilty, and gives both parties a chance to work on their issues (as well as gives the victim time to leave safely if necessary). Another example might be in a civil dispute, where one party claims ownership of a 50 year old vehicle and the other party disputes this, and there isn't enough documentation to support either party's claim. The police are called, and the officer issues lawful orders to both parties to not touch the vehicle until they've sorted it out in court. If one of the parties tries to take possession of the vehicle later that day, they can be arrested by that officer. The problem with the camera issue and lawful orders is that some jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting video and/or audio recording of the police or other government workers, and this empowers the police to issue locally lawful orders to stop recording. However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. All of that said, even if the order is supposedly lawful, I agree that you should keep recording and ask for a supervisor. In some jurisdictions you may end up arrested for obstruction, but chances are the supervisor will realize the implications of continued harassment of a lawfully recording citizen and drop the issue.
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    > However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. It certainly carries weight in the fifth district. If Grinalds/Dyess petition SCOTUS they'll likely hear the case in order to make sure their decision makes a consistent precedent wrt 1st amendment right to "videotape" the police.
    - 10y ago
mikeash 10y ago
On the other hand, the fact that "you can't beat the ride" suggests that you shouldn't even try to. Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. I'm not at all convinced that complying with an unlawful order to stop recording helps those goals.
- stonogo 10y ago
  > Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. This is how rights are eroded. Your goal should be to live in a free society; capitulating to illegal civil rights infringements is not how to achieve that goal.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    It's hard to be free when you're dead or in prison. In any case, I don't quite get your point, since I used that to argue against capitulating.
    - jat850 10y ago
      Much better people than I have been dead or in prison in the name of preserving or gaining civil rights. And many more people are freer because of those people. Sometimes people have to die or go to prison so that others may live or be free. We should all hope to never have to be one of those people, but if someone, somewhere isn't or hasn't been, things will get worse and not better.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Getting killed or framed by a police officer because you stopped recording him and give him the opportunity to act in secret doesn't do anything to advance the cause of civil rights.
        jat850 10y ago
        I think I misunderstood the last part of your original comment in the context of your first part. I understood it to mean that one should stop recording in an effort to survive or not get arrested, but re-reading it I do not think that's what you meant, but the opposite. To clarify my own comment, I'd be of the belief that one should not stop recording, even if that means getting arrested or dead (both unfortunate outcomes, but both sometimes necessary in advancement of civil rights for a greater number of others).

jMyles 10y ago

I think this is awful advice. The second you turn your camera off, you lose your side of the story. If you're seriously nervous and unsure about what to do, ask for a supervisor. In my experience, they'll typically tell other offices to cool it with the cameraphobia crap. But never turn your camera off if you think you're a suspect. What good can it possibly do?

AlexCoventry 10y ago
If you have a record of a government official ordering you under the color of law to turn it off, you have all the story you need.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  You really don't, and if they want to take it away by force record that.
- djsumdog 10y ago
  That's even more reason to no stop filming ...
crusso 10y ago
How often are you in confrontational encounters with the police?
- jMyles 10y ago
  These days? Rarely. But I have had a number of positions which have required me to have encounters (in some cases documented) with police, and although I was (I believe in every single case) professional and courteous, I have occasionally interacted with police officers who weren't. Additionally, I have (like pretty much everybody) had chance encounters with police, and I have chosen to record these, without exception. Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232
  - wfunction 10y ago
    > Here's a rather strange example (note that in this video an officer does incorrectly assert that my video recording him is against the law - when I calmly correct him and move on, he doesn't say another word about it): > https://vimeo.com/2230232 https://vimeo.com/2230232 I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after watching the video, I wanted to let you know that you definitely do sound like a smart aleck when talking to officers (e.g. "well, we both know that in the real world there is such a thing"... or, "well, fundamentally, I...")... maybe you weren't "disrespectful" in your choice of words, but I can't say the same about your tone and approach. It seems like you're willing to give officers as hard a time as possible just because it's not outright illegal. Don't expect a nice reaction when you do that. They had quite a bit of patience with you and you saturated it.
    - MagnumOpus 10y ago
      You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here.
      - wfunction 10y ago
        > You are basically saying that he is guilty of Contempt of Cop and therefore officers "giving him a hard time" (i.e. illegal harassment, arbitrarily detention etc) is normal and to be expected. You are part of the problem here. That's not what I was saying... but I'm not going to waste my time responding to strawman arguments. Be my guest and keep exercising your right to be a jerk to everyone around you.
morganvachon 10y ago
There's a concept in law enforcement called a "lawful order", which is when a police officer orders you to do something and if you don't comply, he can arrest you for obstruction. The thing is, the order must truly be lawful; he can't order you to do something illegal, and he can't order you to (for example) take off your clothes or give him your money. Typically a lawful order will be something like during a domestic dispute, ordering one of the parties to find somewhere else to stay for the night and not to return home for a certain number of hours (a "cooling off" period). This avoids an arrest for domestic violence, which carries harsh repercussions even if the aggressor is found not guilty, and gives both parties a chance to work on their issues (as well as gives the victim time to leave safely if necessary). Another example might be in a civil dispute, where one party claims ownership of a 50 year old vehicle and the other party disputes this, and there isn't enough documentation to support either party's claim. The police are called, and the officer issues lawful orders to both parties to not touch the vehicle until they've sorted it out in court. If one of the parties tries to take possession of the vehicle later that day, they can be arrested by that officer. The problem with the camera issue and lawful orders is that some jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting video and/or audio recording of the police or other government workers, and this empowers the police to issue locally lawful orders to stop recording. However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. All of that said, even if the order is supposedly lawful, I agree that you should keep recording and ask for a supervisor. In some jurisdictions you may end up arrested for obstruction, but chances are the supervisor will realize the implications of continued harassment of a lawfully recording citizen and drop the issue.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  > However, if this ruling carries any weight, the Constitutional right to record will theoretically trump the local restriction, rendering the order no longer lawful. It certainly carries weight in the fifth district. If Grinalds/Dyess petition SCOTUS they'll likely hear the case in order to make sure their decision makes a consistent precedent wrt 1st amendment right to "videotape" the police.
  - 10y ago

mikeash 10y ago

On the other hand, the fact that "you can't beat the ride" suggests that you shouldn't even try to. Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. I'm not at all convinced that complying with an unlawful order to stop recording helps those goals.

stonogo 10y ago
> Your goal should be to survive the encounter and not be convicted of a crime. This is how rights are eroded. Your goal should be to live in a free society; capitulating to illegal civil rights infringements is not how to achieve that goal.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It's hard to be free when you're dead or in prison. In any case, I don't quite get your point, since I used that to argue against capitulating.
  - jat850 10y ago
    Much better people than I have been dead or in prison in the name of preserving or gaining civil rights. And many more people are freer because of those people. Sometimes people have to die or go to prison so that others may live or be free. We should all hope to never have to be one of those people, but if someone, somewhere isn't or hasn't been, things will get worse and not better.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Getting killed or framed by a police officer because you stopped recording him and give him the opportunity to act in secret doesn't do anything to advance the cause of civil rights.
      - jat850 10y ago
        I think I misunderstood the last part of your original comment in the context of your first part. I understood it to mean that one should stop recording in an effort to survive or not get arrested, but re-reading it I do not think that's what you meant, but the opposite. To clarify my own comment, I'd be of the belief that one should not stop recording, even if that means getting arrested or dead (both unfortunate outcomes, but both sometimes necessary in advancement of civil rights for a greater number of others).