Motorcyclist Charged for Recording

[z06boy]

Originally Posted by azoomm

OK, so it's a two party state... it was a helmet cam, I'm assuming ON his helmet. Isn't it then a similar situation as a person standing there HOLDING a video camera recording a situation?

So, why not just repost the video without audio?

Good questions and I would "assume" so. I haven't sided with the police anywhere...just stating what the law is and what I again "assume" is the angle the cops used to persue this guy.

I hope he wins in court. I carry a firearm at times and may have shot the officer in this situation.

[Avatard]

I love how the cops insisted he saw the marked unit behind him.

I don't think ANYONE'S gaze would have been on anything but the guy with the gun YELLING.

[sherri_chickie]

And since when do cops come hollering up to a vehicle screaming at them to get out ( off) with a gun in their hand?

What was this officers ( term used loosely) problem?

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by z06boy

Good questions and I would "assume" so. I haven't sided with the police anywhere...just stating what the law is and what I again "assume" is the angle the cops used to persue this guy.

I hope he wins in court. I carry a firearm at times and may have shot the officer in this situation.

No, you and I are on the same page here... I didn't quote to argue, I quoted to just question.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Avatard

This is what so many miss. Laws are written, usually to fix a social problem.

The problem with written law is that it can be misinterpreted, and sometimes, the act that the law is meant to prevent, is not what the law is "used for". People will use the law "as written", as a means of accomplishing another goal...like COVERING ONE'S ASS FOR BEING A BAD POLICE OFFICER...which is what happened here.

Law win, justice fail.

The People lose.




...time to revise.

Laws are written to have governmental control people and collect revenue.

[z06boy]

Originally Posted by azoomm

No, you and I are on the same page here... I didn't quote to argue, I quoted to just question.

Gotcha...hard to tell on the net sometimes .

[Full Throttle]

This thing is total BS. Ill be really surprised if this guy goes to jail for this. Ima getting me a Helmet cam now lol.

[Papa_Complex]

I just checked the Maryland statute that he's charged under. It specifies "The wilful interception, use, or disclosure of a protected communication..." Under that specification he might have to worry about the disclosure aspect, as he posted it publicly. Here's an interesting little document that was issued in 2000 though:

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I just checked the Maryland statute that he's charged under. It specifies "The wilful interception, use, or disclosure of a protected communication..." Under that specification he might have to worry about the disclosure aspect, as he posted it publicly. Here's an interesting little document that was issued in 2000 though:

http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2000/85oag225.pdf

I cannot consider his interaction with the police officer in the video as protected communication.

[Full Throttle]

After watching that and hearing this guy is getting screwed over somthing like this i think im going to spend my money on this baby.

http://vholdr.com/