# Video taping a cop?



## patriots (Nov 3, 2011)

My buddy was pulled over in auburn a while back and I was in the passenger seat and I proceeded to video and audio tape the officer pulling my buddy over. The cop noticed I was taping hi And made a mad dash to my window telling me it was illegal and that he was going to take my recorder and confiscate it for evidence, and when I didn't give him my I.d he told me I was breaking another law. So what are the laws about this? I know a Boston cop recently lost a case where he was being video taped, is this one of those things where I could get arrested for taping a cop but when it goes to court I win?


----------



## 78thrifleman (Dec 18, 2005)

Troll... Closed.


----------



## 78thrifleman (Dec 18, 2005)

Disregard.... I rushed into that. Reppened til it gets ugly.


----------



## Rock (Mar 20, 2005)

Good call. From the three posts he's had I think we can have a little fun with him.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

Joshua, were you holding the camera/phone in your lap being discreet? Is the video on youtube, let's watch it.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

There is a state wiretap law that is somewhat vague but basically when there is any type of audio recording done all parties involved must be made aware of the recording and consent. I know cases where the confiscation has held up and others where it has not.

My suggestion is don't do it or risk confiscation and a court date.

IBTL


----------



## Guest (Nov 4, 2011)

If this really occurred & you were charged, then you should already know the answer to what laws are applicable. 

Sent from my ADR6300


----------



## patriots (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm no troll at all, and It was on my lap and I should have said I was taping him, it's not on YouTube but I have it on face book, its nothing special he told me I was committing a felony and I argued a little bit and then didn't want a problem so I shut it off, but I'm curious about the whole I.d thing, if I'm not driving do I need to have my Id on me??


----------



## trueblue (Jan 21, 2008)

My suggestion is if you are going to hold something in your hand during a car stop, especially at night, be prepared for me and many other police officers to point our department issued handgun at you until we have determined you don't have something that can hurt us.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

I do not like this but the new clarification of the law points out that anyone can audio and video record any police officer without the police officers consent, ONLY IN PUBLIC PLACES, If the person recording has his interior light on or you clearly see it with your flash light, the person does not need to state anything about how the phone works or if they arre recording you or not. I ran across an activist site where they are advising people to have hidden cameras in the car and inform the police that they are being recorded. They claim that if they then take away your cellphone you can choose to remain silent of any further questions on this, is this true? I would assume that would violate wiretapping laws????


CJIS said:


> There is a state wiretap law that is somewhat vague but basically when there is any type of audio recording done all parties involved must be made aware of the recording and consent. I know cases where the confiscation has held up and others where it has not.
> 
> My suggestion is don't do it or risk confiscation and a court date.
> 
> IBTL


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Looks like we have a mini invasion, First I am not a LEO,second if you
are video taping me you will end up with a couple of broken arms and
a broken phone.
If you are videoing a LEO you are just asking for trouble, nothing else 
needs to be said.


----------



## patriots (Nov 3, 2011)

I don't think it'd be a good idea Harold... Breaking arms and legs on tape?


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

What possible intent is there to video/audio tape a cop during a stop? Hoping he will say a bad word and that will cancel out a citation? Sorry, but there is no legit reason to do it.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

Harold, You would be LEO if you could correct? 

and if the person has 50 hidden cameras on the police but informed the police of this, now the police will have to probably tow and burn the car. But all 50 of the hidden cameras that the police are informed about are live streaming to you tube and remote servers, now then the real LEO would be in huge trouble, they are not immune by their position in LE and they could be charged with 50 counts of denying civil rights and maybe 4th amendment for false arrest?


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

patriots said:


> I don't think it'd be a good idea Harold... Breaking arms and legs on tape?


I would rather enjoy the exercise kicking the shit out of a punk like you.
It would save a LEO the trouble.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

Well I guess some people are claiming that LE are in the position to easily infringe upon your civil rights...


grn3charlie said:


> What possible intent is there to video/audio tape a cop during a stop? Hoping he will say a bad word and that will cancel out a citation? Sorry, but there is no legit reason to do it.


----------



## Rock (Mar 20, 2005)

*WOW!!!!!!!!!! *


----------



## patriots (Nov 3, 2011)

I record me being pulled over because you never know what is going to happen, what if some "whacker" tries pulling me over? I then have him on tape and proof that it happened. And what if for some strange reason the officer does use excessive forse for no reason? I then have proof, I don't do it to get out of tickets, it's pretty hard to get out of a 87 in a 25 ticket. And Harold next time I'm in westport I'll give you a buzz


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

You can now, easily stream live to a remote server or youtube, so be careful if you take anything away, the evidence of this act is already public, or the user can make it private until they are sure that it is allowable


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

"Harold next time I'm in westport I'll give you a buzz"


No problem the last guy that said that never showed
and I doubt you would have the balls to do it either.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

Dude, That is not cool man! He is handicapped!


----------



## patriots (Nov 3, 2011)

XXXXX drive isn't too far of a stroll for me, but I'd feel aweful meeting up with a handicappible man named Harold.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

No one is going to make fun of a Vietnam Veteran friend of mine on here, patriots is gone, respect for le if you want to join him let me know.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

7 like I said he would not have the balls to show
I might be 69 and not in the best of health but
I am still able to handle a punk like him.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

kwflatbed said:


> 7 like I said he would not have the balls to show
> I might be 69 and not in the best of health but
> I am still able to handle a punk like him.


If I had any money and their was a fight it would be on you. Hes a shit stirring troll, if people want him back say the word and hes back.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

No I would not like to be banned. I am just wondering why my post about how you can stream live to you tube or off site server won't be posted. I think this is important for law enforcement officers to be aware of. please message me about this moderator, I just want to know what is wrong with this post.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

My question is, how is he getting all this intel on members? What the F? Or am I that computer illiterate? I am no hacker but I know how to search. That is way too much info for a n00b to come by.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

He\she\it is probably a Occupy clown squatting in the park using an "Apple iPhone" (big corparation by the way) posting crap to see if he\she\it can get a rise out of us and show it to the hippies nearby.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

respectforLE said:


> No I would not like to be banned. I am just wondering why my post about how you can stream live to you tube or off site server won't be posted. I think this is important for law enforcement officers to be aware of. please message me about this moderator, I just want to know what is wrong with this post.


1) I have not deleted any of yours or any other members comments, check your posts again I believe I saw the post your referring to in another thread.



> My question is, how is he getting all this intel on members?


The member your referring to has alink to his site on his posts.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

There was an article about those assholes targeting LE web sites. So yeah, may be.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

My info is public if you know how to search.
Plus it has been posted on MC many times.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

OK, Thank you I see them all now, maybe my mistake, I was refreshing the page I didn't see the posts right away. Thank you for not censoring me. 


7costanza said:


> 1) I have not deleted any of yours or any other members comments, check your posts again I believe I saw the post your referring to in another thread.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

We don't censor here. We may ignore but we don't censor.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

263FPD said:


> We don't censor here. We may ignore but we don't censor.


Ummmmmmmmmmmm......nevermind.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Ok so sometimes we ignore, most times we flame.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

I just wanted to know 1) how the live stream to off site recording makes you feel. 2) And about how the police do not have to give you consent in a public place, they just have to know you are doing it. Feel free to flame away on me. Have some fun. life is too short, uh oh, I know not short enough for me, lol, you guys are funny. good times!


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

I have no issue being recorded in the performance of my duties. Its the editing I have a problem with. We NEVER see the whole incident posted on youtube or played on the news. 

Also, I am not a big fan of hypocrisy so it drives me nuts when groups like the American Criminal Lovers Association advocate videotaping of police in public areas but denounce tge police as big brother when the tables are turned a la the Occupy Protests.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

I can send you several links to videos on you tube that boringly were not edited, I almost wish they were because the questionable actions on one video take over 4 minutes in to see it. using words like "NEVER" usually are "never" accurate, I try not to use words like never and always in any situation.


----------



## Tuna (Jun 1, 2006)

I love getting videoed and posted. Gives me a chance to see how fat and ugly I am.


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Not half as ugly as the Occupy crowd.


----------



## trueblue (Jan 21, 2008)

Tuna said:


> I love getting videoed and posted. Gives me a chance to see how fat and ugly I am.


Oh come on Tuna....You know the camera adds 15, 20, or 30 pounds! That's all it is. As far as the ugly part, well.......


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

respectforLE said:


> I can send you several links to videos on you tube that boringly were not edited, I almost wish they were because the questionable actions on one video take over 4 minutes in to see it. using words like "NEVER" usually are "never" accurate, I try not to use words like never and always in any situation.


Being intimately familiar with police work, I will say now that there is no way a 4 minute video includes ALL aspects of an encounter. Does it include two way radio communications, does it include any previous interactions with the individual, does it include the officers knowledge (or lack there of) of the individuals prior history. I will stand by what I said. The video NEVER tells the whole story.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tuna (Jun 1, 2006)

trueblue said:


> Oh come on Tuna....You know the camera adds 15, 20, or 30 pounds! That's all it is. As far as the ugly part, well.......


Guess I better stop eating cameras.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

No, how does a citizen have access to the two way radio communication?, These videos do tell the entire situation SOMETIMES, not always or never, the exact view from the citizen, as long as they keep the police in the frame at all times, no editing and how can you say that the 4 minutes in does not show the entire interaction between the police and the person videoing? There was nothing said before this interaction or after between the two, there were also witnesses, not friends of the citizen either. There you go again with the NEVER thing, what would it take for the whole thing to be documented correctly? a play by play of the radio? two way communication, which judging by the video there wasn't any at the time, he was working a traffic detail... You are correct you have no idea about all aspects about everything, you have no heart rate monitor on both people, no idea how much food they ate, we can claim the smallest things here, do we need to? :teeth_smile::thumbs_up:


lofu said:


> Being intimately familiar with police work, I will say now that there is no way a 4 minute video includes ALL aspects of an encounter. Does it include two way radio communications, does it include any previous interactions with the individual, does it include the officers knowledge (or lack there of) of the individuals prior history. I will stand by what I said. The video NEVER tells the whole story.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

Thats the point. Small things play a big role and without knowing them you will NEVER know the full story. I havent even seen the video and for all I know the cop was wrong (it does happen on occasion) but Im NEVER going to pass judgement based on a one sided youtube video posted by someone with an agenda.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


----------



## 7MPOC (Mar 16, 2004)

This is why all police cruisers should have cameras in them. At least the cruiser cam would show the story from the Officers point of view. Act professional, do your best with the situation at the time and that is all you can do.

I remember being told a long time ago.... Always assume your being recorded and act as if the Chief was riding shotgun.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2011)

I couldn't care less if someone videos me doing my job as I have nothing to hide, but I will say that if I make a M/V stop and find myself looking at a video camera or cell phone taping the stop, any thoughts of a warning are right out the window, and I will be exceedingly polite when I hand the operator the triple-digit CMVI citation with a reminder of 20 days to pay or appeal.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

Yes the agenda this person had was to document an accident scene, in plain view, they were well away from this on a sidewalk, it was not me and they don't have anymore videos like this posted, this just happened they are not looking for trouble it found them. The legal text of the precedent states that police are in the position to easily violate a citizens rights, that is one reason they allow it now.


lofu said:


> Thats the point. Small things play a big role and without knowing them you will NEVER know the full story. I havent even seen the video and for all I know the cop was wrong (it does happen on occasion) but Im NEVER going to pass judgement based on a one sided youtube video posted by someone with an agenda.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


---------- Post added at 01:25 ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 ----------

Yes all police cars and all police stations should video and audio record I agree! 100%. It is becoming common now for police departments to not upgrade, or stop recording things because it was documenting too many times the officer not acting within the law. This is unfortunate truth. They claim usually the budget didn't allow for it now.


7MPOC said:


> This is why all police cruisers should have cameras in them. At least the cruiser cam would show the story from the Officers point of view. Act professional, do your best with the situation at the time and that is all you can do.
> 
> I remember being told a long time ago.... Always assume your being recorded and act as if the Chief was riding shotgun.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

There is absolutely no way for the video to show the entire story for one very simple reason. Unless you are out trying to start trouble or clairvoyant, there is no way to know when something is going to happen so the video NEVER records the beginning of the incident being recorded. I know our new friend doesn't like the word NEVER, but show me one video that starts at least 10 minutes prior to the incident and records continuously through it without editing. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for something that doesn't exist.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

mtc said:


> Wrong again Troll:
> 
> People who walk around waiting for something to happen to video ARE in fact, LOOKING for trouble.
> 
> I do hope you and your buddy videotape someone someday that doesn't like being filmed - and they beat the snot out of you and then shove that camera up your arse.


Did someone call me ????


----------



## lofu (Feb 25, 2006)

HistoryHound said:


> There is absolutely no way for the video to show the entire story for one very simple reason. Unless you are out trying to start trouble or clairvoyant, there is no way to know when something is going to happen so the video NEVER records the beginning of the incident being recorded. I know our new friend doesn't like the word NEVER, but show me one video that starts at least 10 minutes prior to the incident and records continuously through it without editing. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for something that doesn't exist.


^ This.

On a related note, why doesnt Tapatalk let us like or thank posts.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk


----------



## zm88 (Mar 5, 2009)

USMCMP5811:633846 said:


> Then I have some ocean front tropical jungle to sell you for $10 in South Dakota.


Take ebt? ...


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

I heve NEVER seen any documented proof from anybody on here so why am I special? This is going on hearsay which could be false but it is probably always correct, A friend of mine, not me really!!!!, installs security equipment for a living and he was the one that told me that.  You want me to have him jot that down on paper for you?


USMCMP5811 said:


> And where is your documented proof of this? You're full of shit and you know it. If you truely believe that police departments aren't upfitting/updating AV equiptment because their officers were acting illegally and now are conspiring to cover that up, Then I have some ocean front tropical jungle to sell you for $10 in South Dakota.


---------- Post added at 04:40 ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 ----------

You called me your new friend? (blush) thank you! So 4 minutes before any interaction with the police officer is not good enough but the magic number of 10 Is good enough? OK that is your definition, show me evidence of this logic, I won't hold my breath though, I would pass out! What about the cams in police cars? They only are on when something happens? -check yourself! There was an officer caught on video that recorded 24/7 surveillance, that was caught in the act of something he really should not have been doing with a female, on duty! In uniform, well sometimes out of uniform, have you seen that video?I am sure EVERYONE has seen this and I can assure you it was NEVER edited, the original that is, you want someone to post the 10 minutes prior, yawn, are you kidding me?, I have not watched the previous 24 hours so maybe he was justified for doing what he did, on taxpayers money? You are correct for all I know, because I didn't find the video with the prior 10 minutes, maybe he was forced to do that by his superior? You are right, you and I can NEVER know anything for sure! You will NEVER address the issues I just stated here will you? You are right NEVER does work on you.


HistoryHound said:


> There is absolutely no way for the video to show the entire story for one very simple reason. Unless you are out trying to start trouble or clairvoyant, there is no way to know when something is going to happen so the video NEVER records the beginning of the incident being recorded. I know our new friend doesn't like the word NEVER, but show me one video that starts at least 10 minutes prior to the incident and records continuously through it without editing. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for something that doesn't exist.


---------- Post added at 04:54 ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 ----------

Trolls are cute! thank you!  What about surveillance cameras? I KNOW that they are ALWAYS put up to try and catch people doing something wrong, something WRONG with that? They ALWAYS are looking for trouble! You are correct sir! What if I liked things shoved up my arse, like you posted you wished happened to me, would you then stop because I was enjoying it? Yes you ALWAYS would. I love using these words always never, they rule! OK you have over 10,000 posts, I am never going to attack you or say that you always spend too much time on here, never or always, I haven't made up my mind yet... Never be afraid to use any word Always!  lol!

.


mtc said:


> Wrong again Troll:
> 
> People who walk around waiting for something to happen to video ARE in fact, LOOKING for trouble.
> 
> I do hope you and your buddy videotape someone someday that doesn't like being filmed - and they beat the snot out of you and then shove that camera up your arse.


---------- Post added at 05:04 ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 ----------

Hey you always edit my posts deleting the prior to point and after the point here was the full quoted text:"Yes the agenda this person had was to document an accident scene, in plain view, they were well away from this on a sidewalk, it was not me and *they don't have anymore videos like this posted*, this just happened they are *not looking for trouble* it found them. *The legal text of the precedent states that police are in the position to easily violate a citizens rights, that is one reason they allow it now."
*


mtc said:


> Wrong again Troll:
> 
> People who walk around waiting for something to happen to video ARE in fact, LOOKING for trouble.
> 
> I do hope you and your buddy videotape someone someday that doesn't like being filmed - and they beat the snot out of you and then shove that camera up your arse.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*YOU HAVE







respectforle*


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

I don't know why people who know better feed these trolls.


----------



## respectforLE (Nov 4, 2011)

"Gentlemen" People ALWAYS resort to either giving up because my guesses are usually more accurate than their facts (like the guy claiming mutual consent is needed to record, where did that argument go? oh yeah I was right! You don't need mutual consent if open and public!) or they try and illicit a rude response which would get me banned like (KWFLATBED) and yes, perhaps nobody on here is aware of that hacker called "Anonymous" That hacked into several police departments and posted police un edited incriminating videos? The whole things, even 10 minutes before stuff that from one persons definition is only then a legit video! You can find this on torrent sites, go ahead claim I am making this up, claim the hacker edited all the video, you don't have a leg to stand on, on this argument!. Show some intelligence and argue me with facts and sensibility, instead of acting like immature school punks, I know some of you in here are probably old enough to be my dad, but that hardly shows, I'm sorry I mean NEVER! Respectfully Yours, respectforLE!
edited quote:


kwflatbed said:


> *YOU HAVE (profane image deleted)
> respectforle*


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

respectforLE said:


> "Gentlemen" People ALWAYS resort to either giving up because my guesses are usually more accurate than their facts (like the guy claiming mutual consent is needed to record, where did that argument go? oh yeah I was right! You don't need mutual consent if open and public!) or they try and illicit a rude response which would get me banned like (KWFLATBED) and yes, perhaps nobody on here is aware of that hacker called "Anonymous" That hacked into several police departments and posted police un edited incriminating videos? The whole things, even 10 minutes before stuff that from one persons definition is only then a legit video! You can find this on torrent sites, go ahead claim I am making this up, claim the hacker edited all the video, you don't have a leg to stand on, on this argument!. Show some intelligence and argue me with facts and sensibility, instead of acting like immature school punks, I know some of you in here are probably old enough to be my dad, but that hardly shows, I'm sorry I mean NEVER! Respectfully Yours, respectforLE!
> edited quote:


Why did you come to a law enforcement website to attack the quality of the officers protecting and serving, even ingrates like yourself? You came here to spread lies, argue and inflame, nothing more. I suppose with your attitude, you've run out of friends to argue with and you have nothing better to do with your time? Not my problem. I do, and I don't choose to deal with liars and shit-stirrers when i'm off the clock. You have a negative view of police officers and nothing we say will change that until the day one of ours bails you out of a good ass kicking. Now, run along to play with your ignorant pals at copblock.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

respectforLE said:


> You called me your new friend? (blush) thank you! So 4 minutes before any interaction with the police officer is not good enough but the magic number of 10 Is good enough? OK that is your definition, show me evidence of this logic, I won't hold my breath though, I would pass out! What about the cams in police cars? They only are on when something happens? -check yourself! There was an officer caught on video that recorded 24/7 surveillance, that was caught in the act of something he really should not have been doing with a female, on duty! In uniform, well sometimes out of uniform, have you seen that video?I am sure EVERYONE has seen this and I can assure you it was NEVER edited, the original that is, you want someone to post the 10 minutes prior, yawn, are you kidding me?, I have not watched the previous 24 hours so maybe he was justified for doing what he did, on taxpayers money? You are correct for all I know, because I didn't find the video with the prior 10 minutes, maybe he was forced to do that by his superior? You are right, you and I can NEVER know anything for sure! You will NEVER address the issues I just stated here will you? You are right NEVER does work on you.
> 
> -------- Post added at 05:04 ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 ----------
> 
> Hey you always edit my posts deleting the prior to point and after the point here was the full quoted text:"Yes the agenda this person had was to document an accident scene, in plain view, they were well away from this on a sidewalk, it was not me and *they don't have anymore videos like this posted*, this just happened they are *not looking for trouble* it found them. *The legal text of the precedent states that police are in the position to easily violate a citizens rights, that is one reason they allow it now."*


I'm going to ignore your feeble attempt at humor and am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you missed the sarcasm in my comment. So let's just move on. I'm still waiting for the links to the videos. Put up or shut up. It's not on me or anyone else to research your argument for you. If you have the proof; then, show the proof. You're also comparing apples to oranges. A 24/7 surveillance camera is different than some snotty little punk running around trying to video tape officers who are trying to do their jobs. So back to the original point, where are the videos from these people that start well before the interaction and record it in its entirety? Again, unless you are looking for trouble or clairvoyant they don't exist.

As for your issue with MTC's post, she is absolutely correct. You or anyone else running around trying to videotape the police or any other drama are in fact looking for trouble. You wouldn't tape every day occurrences because they are boring and no one cares. You are less likely to tape something dramatic but positive because those stories have a very short shelf life. People watch, say awww, and move on to something else. You are looking for trouble because that's what gets hundreds of thousands of hits and that's what gets you interviewed by the media. That's what gets you the attention that you are so desperately needing.



respectforLE said:


> "Gentlemen" People ALWAYS resort to either giving up because my guesses are usually more accurate than their facts (like the guy claiming mutual consent is needed to record, where did that argument go? oh yeah I was right! You don't need mutual consent if open and public!) or they try and illicit a rude response which would get me banned like (KWFLATBED) and yes, perhaps nobody on here is aware of that hacker called "Anonymous" That hacked into several police departments and posted police un edited incriminating videos? The whole things, even 10 minutes before stuff that from one persons definition is only then a legit video! You can find this on torrent sites, go ahead claim I am making this up, claim the hacker edited all the video, you don't have a leg to stand on, on this argument!. Show some intelligence and argue me with facts and sensibility, instead of acting like immature school punks, I know some of you in here are probably old enough to be my dad, but that hardly shows, I'm sorry I mean NEVER! Respectfully Yours, respectforLE!
> edited quote:


Well aren't you just a little sexist. Not everyone here is a male. This might come as a shock to you that in this century us womenfolk are actually permitted to think on our own and sometimes our men even let us use these fascinating machines that let us communicate on the interweb thingy. (Thank God we all took typing in school so we could be good secretaries before giving it up to live the dream of getting married and have kids. Otherwise, we'd have no idea how to use this thing.) I know that may seem strange to you as you probably have little experience with girls.

Now just in case the sugarcoating has confused you, let me make this perfectly clear. I don't care for you, not even a little bit. I don't find you even remotely amusing and I don't think you would be able to keep up with anyone here if we took the gloves off. You are nothing more than a pot stirring troll and I have no intention of engaging you further.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

His screenname is respectforle, his email address is leenforcer,he's a shit stirring troll and has been shown the door . Anyone see a reason to keep this thread open speak up.


----------



## grn3charlie (Jul 18, 2005)

Not much more can be said 7 except:

*IBTL
*


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Close this abortion. He has had enough of his self important grand standing. No one here gives a crap about his opinions. Are there assholes and idiots in our line of work who get caught up in some stupidity that is captured on video? Of course. The same can be said about any other group out there. They just aren't that interesting on YouTube as we may be. Who really cares if it isn't a public figure or a cop? No one is going to film a garbage man, because no one would care to watch. But stick a badge and a gun in him, and everyone wants in on the action. We just had a guy who, once in the police station but still in the cruiser and in cuffs, started to audio record the officers with his cell phone. He wouldn't come out of the car and was baiting the officers to take physical action in removing him. Why he still had a cell phone in his possession after being arrested, is still a mystery to me, but no matter. No one knew that he was recording the police until he was taken out if the car. At no point did anyone there ever escalated to use of force to get him to come out of the cruiser. It was very clear to everyone there that all this guy was doing, was just talking shit. His demeanor screamed "I am really just a pussy". His attempts to get a negative response went unfulfilled and you could tell that he was frustrated by it. What did it get him? An illegal wiretapping charge on top of some relatively minor charges. Back of the police station is not a per se a public place where courts have tilled in favor of recording the police based on one party consent. It is quite the different situation here. We took his little android phone. Good luck explaining that to Assurion as a lost/stolen phone so you can get a replacement. This guy was not having a good week because the following day, he was arrested again for tuning up his wife.. "Sir, do you wan to use your cell phone or our station phone to make bail? Oh yeah, that's right. We got your phone. Oh well, by the way, that line you are calling in us recorded. You must advise the person on the other end that they are being recorded or otherwise I will terminate this call for you. Oh and also, the magistrate said that you don't get bail. Yeah I know it's Friday. Too bad. You are here for an extended stay. "


----------

