• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rejects plea to ban taping of police in Illinois

I agree. That is very good news. If the people who work for the public are afraid of the public checking on their work its a problem - for me anyway.
 
Good news for all.
 
One of the things in this case that really bugs me is the government spent money on attorneys to protect the state against the people. Kind of sounds like something going on in Egypt not Illinois.


radcen said:
This is great news!
Click to expand...
 
radcen said:
This is great news!
Click to expand...

In this day and age of Big Brother looking at me no matter where I go, This OP just might be the best news that I've ever heard!
 
So long as people realize that just because you have a piece of video showing the police doing something you believe to be wrong doesn't mean they actually ARE/WERE doing something wrong, or that everyone who views the video is going to agree that it's wrong.

We currently have a piece of video floating around New England showing Rhode Island Police forcing teens to do pushups after being caught vandalizing someone's property. Some people around here are in an absolute outrage over it. Most of us really don't see what the problem is.
 
Tigger said:
So long as people realize that just because you have a piece of video showing the police doing something you believe to be wrong doesn't mean they actually ARE/WERE doing something wrong, or that everyone who views the video is going to agree that it's wrong.
Click to expand...
That's fine, as long as we also remember that police are human and not pure and right all the time. Police and their sycophants like to say "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" all the time when discussing suspects. Guess what, that's a two-way street. If the police themselves have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, and should not object to being recorded/filmed.
 
radcen said:
That's fine, as long as we also remember that police are human and not pure and right all the time. Police and their sycophants like to say "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" all the time when discussing suspects. Guess what, that's a two-way street. If the police themselves have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear, and should not object to being recorded/filmed.
Click to expand...

True. However, when there's a question of who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong, I'm going to side with the LEO 99% of the time until it can be definitively proven they were in the wrong.
 
CalGun said:
One of the things in this case that really bugs me is the government spent money on attorneys to protect the state against the people. Kind of sounds like something going on in Egypt not Illinois.
Click to expand...

here in this place called america we have these things called courts. in courts people present both sides, not just one. Yes, that often means that at some time or another a completely stupid point will be defended. Still, this defense is guaranteed for all of us so that the government cannot say you personally cannot defend yourself because someone does not feel your case has merrit. Where i do agree the law was absurd and needed to be challenged, it also needs to be defended.

So feel glad that notion is there because it protects you. Seriously, sometimes people really amaze me when they want to toss out their own rights and allow government officials to simply decide they are not worth defending in court. if that is the land you really want i am sure there are some places in this world that would allow the government to decide, without trial, your fate.
 
Tigger said:
True. However, when there's a question of who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong, I'm going to side with the LEO 99% of the time until it can be definitively proven they were in the wrong.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about recording/filming police in their work?
 
There was no need for the government to provide the defense of this; if a union or cop wanted to flp the bill for defending this violation of our rights let them - the government doing so irritates me. Our government should not be involved in such legal proceedings.


tererun said:
here in this place called america we have these things called courts. in courts people present both sides, not just one. Yes, that often means that at some time or another a completely stupid point will be defended. Still, this defense is guaranteed for all of us so that the government cannot say you personally cannot defend yourself because someone does not feel your case has merrit. Where i do agree the law was absurd and needed to be challenged, it also needs to be defended.

So feel glad that notion is there because it protects you. Seriously, sometimes people really amaze me when they want to toss out their own rights and allow government officials to simply decide they are not worth defending in court. if that is the land you really want i am sure there are some places in this world that would allow the government to decide, without trial, your fate.
Click to expand...
 
Tigger said:
So long as people realize that just because you have a piece of video showing the police doing something you believe to be wrong doesn't mean they actually ARE/WERE doing something wrong, or that everyone who views the video is going to agree that it's wrong.

We currently have a piece of video floating around New England showing Rhode Island Police forcing teens to do pushups after being caught vandalizing someone's property. Some people around here are in an absolute outrage over it. Most of us really don't see what the problem is.
Click to expand...

You see, police have a job. In this case it was to arrest and charge the teens with a crime and then to submit the evidence they find to the courts for trial. The police are not the prosecutor, and they are not the judge or jury. Though i would imagine the teens should prefer doing a few push ups as opposed to having to deal with courts, lawyers, and possibly fines for the stupid thing they did, but it is not the police's job to declare the teens guilty on the street and deal out punishment to them. Still, in this case i agree the police probably did the vandals a favor with that particular choice.

The problem arises from a few things. First is the potentially prejudicial handing out of justice. Do these cops always make vandals do push ups? probably not so they dispensed justice differently based upon their own bias. That is a problem. The second problem I see is that by condoning this activity you encourage police to take punishment into their own hands. This can go very wrong. Who is to say tomorrow these cops won't decide to give the next vandals a beating, or to fine the criminals themselves and pocket the money? It is outside of their authority for a reason.
 
CalGun said:
There was no need for the government to provide the defense of this; if a union or cop wanted to flp the bill for defending this violation of our rights let them - the government doing so irritates me. Our government should not be involved in such legal proceedings.
Click to expand...

yes, everything gets defended, and the federal government simply cannot step in and toss out a law of a state because they do not like it. feel glad things like that are there because without them we would be egypt where the leader can just say they do not have to obey the rules of the land. yes, the procedures are there to protect you even when you do not understand their value.
 
Tigger said:
So long as people realize that just because you have a piece of video showing the police doing something you believe to be wrong doesn't mean they actually ARE/WERE doing something wrong, or that everyone who views the video is going to agree that it's wrong.

We currently have a piece of video floating around New England showing Rhode Island Police forcing teens to do pushups after being caught vandalizing someone's property. Some people around here are in an absolute outrage over it. Most of us really don't see what the problem is.
Click to expand...

Seeing the total lack of physical fitness exhibited by today's teens, these pushups might be misconstrued as cruel and unusual punishment. In any event, it keeps them out of jail.
 
My local police are notorious for beating up people who film them acting like total assholes. This ruling will no doubt cause many tears to be shed by these swaggering bullies in uniform.

Po;ice aren't supposed to be "only human". They are licensed to kill and should be held to the highest of standards. They aren't though. And their Union defends them vigorously no matter how egregious their behavior.

I'm sure there are a few good apples in the rotten apple barrel. You know, just like in the movies. But for the most parts, these are the big kids who slammed you around in High School and now they have guns and badges.
 
Florida has an anti-audio recording law too. It is a law specifically meant to protect commercial and governmental fraud and criminal conduct, plus protecting private sector fraudsters, government officials and police from potential perjury charges. All those laws should be declared unconstitutional or otherwise eliminated.

The court case has exactly NOTHING to do with teens doing pushups.
 
CalGun said:
One of the things in this case that really bugs me is the government spent money on attorneys to protect the state against the people. Kind of sounds like something going on in Egypt not Illinois.
Click to expand...

Just somebody doing their job. Believe it or not, there are a few people who work for Attorney Generals et als who will cede a case, but not many. You just never hear about them because they cede the case before it ever gets decided by a court people hear of.
 
Tigger said:
True. However, when there's a question of who is in the Right and who is in the Wrong, I'm going to side with the LEO 99% of the time until it can be definitively proven they were in the wrong.
Click to expand...

You don't have to judge, that is why we have attorneys, courts, judges, juries, to render verdicts. Verdicts are based on evidence, a video is a piece of evidence.
 
radcen said:
This is great news!
Click to expand...

I agree with this ruling. Law enforcement are employees of the tax payers.We as their employers have a right to video tape what our employees are doing on the job.Plus if the police can video tape us then there is no reason we can't video tape them.
 
From the article:
Illinois' eavesdropping law is one of the harshest in the country, making audio recording of a law enforcement officer — even while on duty and in public — a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
Click to expand...

Holy shiite! Yet another reason I am thankful that I do not live in IL.
 
jamesrage said:
I agree with this ruling. Law enforcement are employees of the tax payers.We as their employers have a right to video tape what our employees are doing on the job.Plus if the police can video tape us then there is no reason we can't video tape them.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I agree with you.

But, in the interest of conversation and consistency, should this also extend to lying? For example, it is flat-out illegal for a suspect or witness to lie to the police during a criminal investigation. But, not only are the police legally allowed to lie to suspects and witnesses, they are encouraged to do so.

Should we hold the same standards to the police in that scenario that they is held to us?
 
SMTA said:
Holy shiite! Yet another reason I am thankful that I do not live in IL.
Click to expand...
I moved to a neighboring state 7 years ago, and have since come to observe how totally effed-up Illinois is. They do some truly bizarre scheit there.
 
radcen said:
Obviously, I agree with you.

But, in the interest of conversation and consistency, should this also extend to lying? For example, it is flat-out illegal for a suspect or witness to lie to the police during a criminal investigation. But, not only are the police legally allowed to lie to suspects and witnesses, they are encouraged to do so.

Should we hold the same standards to the police in that scenario that they is held to us?
Click to expand...

If there is no criminal penalties for police lying to suspects then there should be no criminal penalties for lying to the police. I believe law enforcement should be held to the same exact standards as the rest of the civilian population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom