It is a double standard, but as of right now filming a LEO without his permission is illegal in Maryland, absurd IMO and hopefully this case will be the reason that law is changed.
DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!
It is a double standard, but as of right now filming a LEO without his permission is illegal in Maryland, absurd IMO and hopefully this case will be the reason that law is changed.
Actually, it's not illegal in Maryland. The cops and the prosecutors are misapplying the law in this and other cases. Their courts have already ruled that videoing is legal. Radley Balko has covered this extensively.It is a double standard, but as of right now filming a LEO without his permission is illegal in Maryland, absurd IMO and hopefully this case will be the reason that law is changed.
Actually, it's not illegal in Maryland. The cops and the prosecutors are misapplying the law in this and other cases. Their courts have already ruled that videoing is legal. Radley Balko has covered this extensively.
With no audio, we are unclear WHAT was said. However, it will say that a badge around the neck would go a lot further in identification if it goes to court. I keep a badge on a neck chain in my car for that very reason while I'm off-duty.
Well, officer presence is a demonstration of force as well. Demonstration is NOT application of force and I have not found a court decision that says different. Excessive force only covers APPLICATION not demonstration.But it is a demonstration of force.
When does a demonstration become invocation?
Pulling the trigger? That makes it a bit too late to dispute it, doesn't it. I'd rather be a little bit early in an assumption than dead, courts be damned.
IF that is the case, it would change my stance. However, going off of the video clip that I watched, I stand by my prior posts.
A law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest. Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances.
And that's the danger of trying to judge a situation based on a video. Usually there is no way to determine if the video has been edited, re-dubbed, or otherwise tampered with. TV networks do it all the time.
Not my definition but point taken.Government obtains authority from the people.
Only people have rights. Law Enforcement obtains their authority from the government.
It may appear a matter of semantics, but its important to recognize that such authority is not intrinsically provided.
I search a building for an alarm with my gun drawn. Does that mean that I will automatically fire if I find someone? No, it means that I am prepared to if warranted. I pulled up on a vehicle that was carjacked with the suspect behind the wheel. I got out with guns drawn (duh right?) and he took off in the car. He drove away from me so there was no way I could shoot him even if my gun was drawn. I gave chase and we eventually caught him. I have stopped burglary suspects at gun point, should I not do that? They were unarmed. We are allowed leeway in this because we are reactive. We cannot shoot someone provocatively and are always at a tactical disadvantage. The law allows this.
Guess I'm not he only one who might mistake an off-duty cop for a regular
Cop uses Taser on another in Mass. off-duty spat - Yahoo! News
Here's the lengthier version of the video. Not much to it except his ride.
YouTube - nikotyc's Channel
Also, here's a good article on the matter from Carlos Miller.
Are you assuming there was something particular about this traffic stop that warranted having a drawn gun? Being called to a potential burglary I can understand. Traffic stops for speeding are another thing, aren't they?
seeing that version, I know there is a cop car behind me, not just the dude getting out of the car with a gun. This video clears it up a little better.
Here's the lengthier version of the video. Not much to it except his ride.
YouTube - nikotyc's Channel
Also, here's a good article on the matter from Carlos Miller.
And that's the danger of trying to judge a situation based on a video. Usually there is no way to determine if the video has been edited, re-dubbed, or otherwise tampered with. TV networks do it all the time.
So you would draw your weapon because a car cut you off? Then shoot the man as he got out of his car? What if it was just someone pissed because you was speeding and maybe cut him off, endanger his family that was in the car with him?
I actually think that police officers should go to jail for pulling a gun on an unarmed person.
If any of us did that, you'd take us to jail, but somehow, police are allowed to use a gun as a negotiation tool while we'd go to jail, probably for a felony, for the same thing.
Trying to use a gun as a negotiation tool can never go well anyway. What are you going to do if he tries to ride away? Shoot him? I highly doubt it.
It is bad tactics to have a gun in your hand unless you're going to be able to use it. I'd love to see some statistics on how many of these so-called "felony stops" result in bad things happening to police officers.
I guess they never taught you that the safest place for your gun is in your holster, that you're taking a risk every single time you draw it, and combined with the fact that most dead cops were shot with their own gun, to think wisely before drawing down.
But then again, I don't see this changing anytime soon, and it's not like I have much sympathy to someone who runs from the cops. But drawing a gun on someone when you have no intention of ever pulling the trigger intentionally sounds like the beginnings of a bad shoot every time it happens.
Then again, it's pretty rare to see them rule something a "bad shoot" even when the evidence is overwhelming that it is.
Again, we have all the parts now to where an automatically traffic law complying car can be manufactured. It would be so nice to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed limit, or swerving into lanes, etc.
I fear it will never happen, just because of the loss of revenue, and power trips.
Again, we have all the parts now to where an automatically traffic law complying car can be manufactured. It would be so nice to be INCAPABLE of exceeding the speed limit, or swerving into lanes, etc.
I fear it will never happen, just because of the loss of revenue, and power trips.
No thanks. I wouldn't want the state to have that kind of control over me. It's interesting how some people (including gun-owners who don't want the government infringing on THEIR 2A rights) are Ok with the government having more control of people in general.