Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       01-19-2017, 9:53 PM Reply   
For the past few years we have heard the president as well as the Democratic nominee hammer away on police and the need for body cams on every officer in America in the interest of tranparency. DOJ consent decrees giving departments to outfit every officer with cameras.

Now that they are equippped the left has lobbied to ensure police can't use their body cameras to record incidents involving protesters in DC for the innaguration. This is truly bizzaro world. Hypocracy at its best. You can't make this craziness up


http://wreg.com/2017/01/17/d-c-offic...record-police/
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Texas       01-20-2017, 1:15 AM Reply   
http://www.snopes.com/aclu-police-re...tion-protests/

derf, ok there breitbart
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       01-20-2017, 3:32 AM Reply   
Wes: from your Snopes link:

In a 12 January 2017 news report, ACLU regional representative Monica Hopkins-Maxwell explained that the organization was concerned with individual privacy during planned, peaceful inauguration protests:

The ACLU rep go's on to say!
Those cameras shouldn't be on. The police shouldn't be allowed to surveil first amendment activity. Our concern around the availability of body cameras, what is done with that data, who looks at that data, what that data is used for?

Isn't mark referring to "Liberal Ideology" and Not a actual law or Rule
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-20-2017, 9:06 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by grant_west View Post
Wes: from your Snopes link:

In a 12 January 2017 news report, ACLU regional representative Monica Hopkins-Maxwell explained that the organization was concerned with individual privacy during planned, peaceful inauguration protests:

The ACLU rep go's on to say!
Those cameras shouldn't be on. The police shouldn't be allowed to surveil first amendment activity. Our concern around the availability of body cameras, what is done with that data, who looks at that data, what that data is used for?

Isn't mark referring to "Liberal Ideology" and Not a actual law or Rule
So Grant, you read the District of Columbia ordinance that says "recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct," right?

This is really interesting to me. On its face I agree that it sounds silly to think that you have an expectation of privacy or anonymity for activities conducted in public. I don't think you do, constitutionally. Meaning I think it's probably totally legal for the police to video a lawful first amendment assembly and identify those in attendance.

But here, it looks (to me) like the city has gone a step further to restrict (by ordinance) what would otherwise be lawful.

And in that context I don't think asking the police to comply with law can really be called "liberal ideology" or "hypocrisy."
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2017, 10:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
And in that context I don't think asking the police to comply with law can really be called "liberal ideology" or "hypocrisy."
If you are a fan of of bombastic partisan drivel, then it's ok.
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       01-20-2017, 10:52 AM Reply   
AS usual people with no brain to think for themselves pick out the words from internet articles and twist them to make them to make an argument valid. You should really read the entire law, along with the policy and procedures in place for DC Police with all of its wording , not the wording spouted off in liberal rants . Here are so more parts to the actua law that will clear up any doubt the ACLU is the biggest sorry excuse of any civil rights group to date.

Officers may record First Amendment assemblies for the purpose of documenting violations of law and police actions, as an aid to future coordination and deployment of law enforcement units, and for training purposes; provided, that recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct.


As usual the left cherry picks small portions leaving off the most critical info to send to the masses only ,to ***** their view of the entire picture and law. Too bad BARRY is no longer there to wipe it out with a pen by executive order
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       01-20-2017, 11:15 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
So Grant, you read the District of Columbia ordinance that says "recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct," right?

This is really interesting to me. On its face I agree that it sounds silly to think that you have an expectation of privacy or anonymity for activities conducted in public. I don't think you do, constitutionally. Meaning I think it's probably totally legal for the police to video a lawful first amendment assembly and identify those in attendance.

But here, it looks (to me) like the city has gone a step further to restrict (by ordinance) what would otherwise be lawful.

And in that context I don't think asking the police to comply with law can really be called "liberal ideology" or "hypocrisy."
You are correct in inferring you have no right to privacy in public. It's been fought in the courts and lost numerous times . You are also correct in the fact D.C. Restricts that just a touch(much like a lot of their laws restristicting your rights afforded by the constitution) ,but if you read the entire law regarding the police use of recordings in DC ,it limits what the police "can use those recordings for " IT DOESN'T restrict the fact the police can lawfully record protesters , it simply puts restrictions on what the footage may be used for. The ACLU in this instance dams the law and cherry picks one sentence out of it to make it seem as if their rights are being violated and it's some big conspiracy. This all after the fact that almost every Body Worn Camera policy in the nation was drafted with the ACLU hammering home the BWC mandate to record all civilian interactions with police . That in and of itself is irony. The same group pushing a national mandate on transparency , data collection to ensure there is no bias , using data for training , is now the same group complaining it isn't fair when it's used for the purposes they had a hand in implementing. It's laughable and yet scary at the same time.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       01-20-2017, 11:16 AM Reply   
Isn't that what I quoted??
Old     (xstarrider)      Join Date: Jun 2007       01-20-2017, 11:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Isn't that what I quoted??
You quoted a portion of the law. But I believe your inference may be incorrect based on that small portion , the lack of full details of the law , and your comment at the end . Look at my bold portion for the full details. You state "in that context I don't think asking the police to comply with a law ..............". That's precisely my point. The ACLU is not asking police to follow the existing written law. They want you to believe they are by cherry picking portions to fit their agenda , but in reality when you take into account all the facts and details of the law they were pushing for them to make a special exemption for this specific instance that is even more restrictive than the law currently in place in DC . A law I am sure the ACLU had more than their fair share of influence getting on the books in the first place.

ficers may record First Amendment assemblies for the purpose of documenting violations of law and police actions, as an aid to future coordination and deployment of law enforcement units, and for training purposes; provided, t

That precedes the portion you posted in your response to Grant , and the ACLU cherry picks which shows police under currrent law DO have the right to record it all.

Last edited by xstarrider; 01-20-2017 at 11:54 AM.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us