Warp wrote:
>   For people living there, is anything of this true?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx_LbxfEYTk

Eavesdropping laws basically are usually reasonable. They only apply (in 
theory) when you're in private. So if she was in, for example, the 
investigator's office, then yes, she's eavesdropping.  But if he filmed the 
cops arresting him on the street with random individuals walking past, 
you're not eavesdropping. Note that the eavesdropping laws were mostly 
passed when telephones were getting popular, making it illegal to record a 
private conversation unless one (or both) of the participants knows it's 
being recorded.

States are passing laws making it illegal to film arrests, regardless of 
whether it's "eavesdropping". Illinois is extra bad in this respect right 
now. Most of the other states are trying to use wire-tapping laws to keep 
you from filming police, but it turns out it's not working.

And yes, the Supreme Court decided that police are not obligated to enforce 
laws. Which makes sense in the abstract, because otherwise every crime where 
the police were too late to stop it would wind up in court.

But this sort of tendency was exactly what I was talking about when I asked 
if you think your government is taking care of business. If this happened in 
your country, would you be shocked and outraged? Or would you just say 
"Well, of course the police aren't on your side."

She probably would have been better off with a civil suit, where her lawyer 
would just say "It's his word against yours, and you're going to lose, so 
just forget it."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message