Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2010, 02:35 PM   #31
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
...
As I have said all along, the big issue for me is the deliberate braking of laws to make a photo/video, and while I agree we should have the rights to photograp things in public, that right should not be exploited to protect us from prosicution for braking the laws.
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
... Does deliberately breaking the laws to make a recording make them intended for criminal use? etc...,

We won't solve it in the forum, and as I said, I personally think this type of discussion where someone has broken laws to make a recording is the wrong case to argue about the rights of photographers.
Again, Lowell, what makes you think he broke the law so he could get a video of a cop jumping out of an unmarked car with a weapon drawn? And he has not tried to use any portion of the video to avoid prosecution or fines for the reckless driving so I really don't understand your assertions that he is trying to avoid prosecution. In fact, he freely admits that the speeding and wheelie was reckless, he accepted the citation and has paid the fine. The police are not after him for anything involved in the "driving" part of his video.

The entire case, as far as the authorities are concerned is his purported unauthorized tapping of a police officer and as the reckless driving issue has already been disposed of (by him paying the fine) it has no bearing on the wiretapping case.

08-05-2010, 02:41 PM   #32
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
Motorcycle riders in general do not have a "pristine" reputation, and part of that is due to video of their too often driving like morons.
And some car drivers or tractor trailer drivers or bicyclists act like morons too...


QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
Graber wouldn't be facing ANY charges if he wasn't speeding and driving like a moron.

That much IS true! but it happened and the fact that he recorded the finale should be a non-issue. except for an over-reaching DA looking to shield an aggresive cop from embarrassment.
08-05-2010, 03:31 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
Since we are on a photo Forum......Picture This....

A woman is driving on a bridge across a deep body of water......she has a blowout and loses control, going over the guardrail. Traffic is light, but fortunately a Police Officer is not far behind her and sees the whole thing. So do you, and you pullover behind the Police a car and as he dives in you begin to video the whole thing.....as he pulls out the mother, then as the vehicle starts to submerge, he returns to pull out a young child strapped in a car seat. You got it all.....the mother screaming, the cop yelling directions...all of it......nice and sharp!

Now, tell me how they are about to arrest you when it hits Youtube? This is a two way game, and the Cops are trying to play it with one way laws. It won't fly.
Regards!
08-06-2010, 04:54 AM   #34
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 673
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Hey man, don't start stereotyping motorcycle riders, or else I'll have no choice but to start stereotyping Leafs fans!
Ahahahahahaha..........like we haven't been stereotyped for, oh, say 40 YEARS.....



08-06-2010, 04:58 AM   #35
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada eh!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 673
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
Since we are on a photo Forum......Picture This....

A woman is driving on a bridge across a deep body of water......she has a blowout and loses control, going over the guardrail. Traffic is light, but fortunately a Police Officer is not far behind her and sees the whole thing. So do you, and you pullover behind the Police a car and as he dives in you begin to video the whole thing.....as he pulls out the mother, then as the vehicle starts to submerge, he returns to pull out a young child strapped in a car seat. You got it all.....the mother screaming, the cop yelling directions...all of it......nice and sharp!

Now, tell me how they are about to arrest you when it hits Youtube? This is a two way game, and the Cops are trying to play it with one way laws. It won't fly.
Regards!
We can play the whatif game till we're blue in the face. The point of my post was to show that generalizations like yours (and mine) are useless.

It's going to take a court case and a lot of lawyers money to sort this one out.

Police are videotaped without incident many many times. This guy just happened to be endangering the public while he was doing his videotaping.

I'd also suspect there's more to the story than what is shown by the videotape, it's just a piece of the puzzle that a judge will have to put together to see if it makes a clear picture of Graber violating a law, or if there are too many pieces of the puzzle missing.

Last edited by Leaf Fan; 08-06-2010 at 05:04 AM.
08-06-2010, 05:46 AM   #36
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by Leaf Fan Quote
We can play the whatif game till we're blue in the face. The point of my post was to show that generalizations like yours (and mine) are useless.

It's going to take a court case and a lot of lawyers money to sort this one out.

Police are videotaped without incident many many times. This guy just happened to be endangering the public while he was doing his videotaping.

I'd also suspect there's more to the story than what is shown by the videotape, it's just a piece of the puzzle that a judge will have to put together to see if it makes a clear picture of Graber violating a law, or if there are too many pieces of the puzzle missing.
I believe it comes down to the intended use of the vidio.

If the intended use was to break the laws then under the wiretap laws it could be considered illegal. Remember that inciting others to break the law is also illegal and as such, the posting could be illegal on it's own right.

I commented a long time ago this will take a trial to sort out, but my general comment still stands, arguing this case, where someone deliberately endangered the public to make a video is the wrong case to pick in arguing the general cause of supression of rights.
08-06-2010, 06:23 AM   #37
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I believe it comes down to the intended use of the vidio.

If the intended use was to break the laws then under the wiretap laws it could be considered illegal. Remember that inciting others to break the law is also illegal and as such, the posting could be illegal on it's own right.

I commented a long time ago this will take a trial to sort out, but my general comment still stands, arguing this case, where someone deliberately endangered the public to make a video is the wrong case to pick in arguing the general cause of supression of rights.
Lowell, I really don't understand where you get the idea that he did all this so he could get a video. Yes, he willingly videotaped his reckless driving however the police are not using the portion of the video that shows him speeding and pulling wheelies. If they were they would be charging him with much more than the "80mph in a 65mph zone" that he was cited with at the scene. Why aren't they using the part of the video that shows him "supposedly" going 127mph? I don't know, but the point is, the driving violations have already been handled.

Graber is facing wiretapping charges completely and solely for the portion of the video that begins as he pulls to a stop. Up to that point he was not wiretapping anyone. At that point he was no longer driving recklessly. At that point, the crime which caused him to be pulled over was no longer occuring. No, the "crime" he is being accused of only begins at the point where the officer jumps out of his car.

I could understand your contention IF Graber was trying to use the video as a way to get out of the ticket but he isn't. From the point where he is stopped until the video ends he is committing NO CRIME regardless of what preceeded or precipitated the stop. And it seems that the MD Attorney General's office agrees so in the end, this case will likely be dropped before it goes to the trial you seem to advocate.

Mike

p.s. and where do you get the idea that by posting his video he is inciting others to crime? And to what crime, reckless driving... videotaping police in public... what?

08-06-2010, 06:31 AM   #38
Veteran Member
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,361
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I believe it comes down to the intended use of the vidio.

If the intended use was to break the laws then under the wiretap laws it could be considered illegal. Remember that inciting others to break the law is also illegal and as such, the posting could be illegal on it's own right.

I commented a long time ago this will take a trial to sort out, but my general comment still stands, arguing this case, where someone deliberately endangered the public to make a video is the wrong case to pick in arguing the general cause of supression of rights.
This is where we disagree, Lowell. That's ok. I've laid out my perspective. No use repeating it. Let's see how this story evolves...
08-06-2010, 07:24 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Lowell, I really don't understand where you get the idea that he did all this so he could get a video. Yes, he willingly videotaped his reckless driving however the police are not using the portion of the video that shows him speeding and pulling wheelies. If they were they would be charging him with much more than the "80mph in a 65mph zone" that he was cited with at the scene. Why aren't they using the part of the video that shows him "supposedly" going 127mph? I don't know, but the point is, the driving violations have already been handled.

Graber is facing wiretapping charges completely and solely for the portion of the video that begins as he pulls to a stop. Up to that point he was not wiretapping anyone. At that point he was no longer driving recklessly. At that point, the crime which caused him to be pulled over was no longer occuring. No, the "crime" he is being accused of only begins at the point where the officer jumps out of his car.

I could understand your contention IF Graber was trying to use the video as a way to get out of the ticket but he isn't. From the point where he is stopped until the video ends he is committing NO CRIME regardless of what preceeded or precipitated the stop. And it seems that the MD Attorney General's office agrees so in the end, this case will likely be dropped before it goes to the trial you seem to advocate.

Mike

p.s. and where do you get the idea that by posting his video he is inciting others to crime? And to what crime, reckless driving... videotaping police in public... what?
Mike

it may have nothing to do with the police action in the video, but the recording in general. Let's separate the points here and again, this is something that a judge and jury, fully versed in the applicability of the law would need to decide.

under the wire tap laws, recordings made with the intent to use the recording to brake the law are illegal.

Now we can all argue about the "intended use" and 'intended or expected content" but, clearly the photographer should have reasoably expected an interaction with the police for driving recklesly. Therefore the answer is yes, he could have intended to film the police response. We can't judge this one way or the other.

Next, posting the video, which depicts him largely riding like a fool, and again I have seen the video but not the origonal post,. could be part of a challenge for others to do the same, i.e. inciting others to break the law also. This is a crime and the argument about inciting people to break the law has been tested in other forms of media, where people have carried out suggestions brodcast on radio or TV, previously.

As I said, this is a good case for people to watch,
08-06-2010, 07:43 AM   #40
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
So let me see if I get this....if the Officer, in a fit of rage, approached the offender and just went ahead and shot him on the spot......the "illegal video" could not be used in court? You have to know that such events happen, we read about many of them, never hear about most of them, and are fortunate to have video of some of them....and all of those videos were declared legal. So....what makes this one different? If it was citizen entrapment for what happened in this video....would it have been if the Officer shot him?
Regards
08-06-2010, 07:51 AM   #41
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteQuote:
under the wire tap laws, recordings made with the intent to use the recording to brake the law are illegal.
How was he using the recording to break the law? Furthermore, its been stated by several people including the current and previous attorney general that this is s misuse of the wire tapping law or the police wouldn't be able to have dash cams.This "intent" logic is a slippery slope. The guy could have sold it to a reality show or a news service. He was arrested for recording it during a raid on his house. By your logic, the Paparazzi would be next to shut down.

I took this from a stationary vehicle. I could have sent this to the news paper.

08-06-2010, 08:03 AM   #42
Veteran Member
MRRiley's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sterling, VA, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Mike

it may have nothing to do with the police action in the video, but the recording in general. Let's separate the points here and again, this is something that a judge and jury, fully versed in the applicability of the law would need to decide.

under the wire tap laws, recordings made with the intent to use the recording to brake the law are illegal.

Now we can all argue about the "intended use" and 'intended or expected content" but, clearly the photographer should have reasoably expected an interaction with the police for driving recklesly. Therefore the answer is yes, he could have intended to film the police response. We can't judge this one way or the other.

Next, posting the video, which depicts him largely riding like a fool, and again I have seen the video but not the origonal post,. could be part of a challenge for others to do the same, i.e. inciting others to break the law also. This is a crime and the argument about inciting people to break the law has been tested in other forms of media, where people have carried out suggestions brodcast on radio or TV, previously.

As I said, this is a good case for people to watch,
Lowell... Your incitement argument is irrelevent in this case. While it MAY rise to the level of a crime (something which I agree a judge would need to decide), the police are not charging him with "incitement to commit crimes." They are charging him with videotapping a police officer without his permission. Nothing in the charges mentions incitement or even his reckless driving other than as the reason he was stopped.

Last edited by MRRiley; 08-06-2010 at 08:24 AM.
08-06-2010, 08:22 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by MRRiley Quote
Do you mind providing a copy of a wiretapping statute that states that?
Mike

I found it on a link discussing the wire tap laws, and applicability of making secret recordings, or recordings without consent, when the purpose was to use the recording later to comit a crime. It largely related to blackmail and extortion, as examples, but stated not specific crimes, only that it be used to comit a crime (i interpret any crime)

I believe it was a federal statute not a state one.

Do a search on it and you should find it, I did not keep a link.
08-06-2010, 08:27 AM   #44
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Mike

I found it on a link discussing the wire tap laws, and applicability of making secret recordings, or recordings without consent, when the purpose was to use the recording later to comit a crime. It largely related to blackmail and extortion, as examples, but stated not specific crimes, only that it be used to comit a crime (i interpret any crime)

I believe it was a federal statute not a state one.

Do a search on it and you should find it, I did not keep a link.
The purpose in this case is a reach to Pluto. He was arrested under Maryland law following a raid on his home. The judge that issued that warrant should be disbarred.
08-06-2010, 08:31 AM   #45
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,868
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
How was he using the recording to break the law?
read my previous post, if the intent was to post it to insite others to break the law that is a crime
QuoteQuote:
Furthermore, its been stated by several people including the current and previous attorney general that this is s misuse of the wire tapping law
i never disputed that ther is misuse of the wire tap law, I am not sure the reference to this specific case was made or only the generalization of abuse.
QuoteQuote:
or the police wouldn't be able to have dash cams.
these are to avoid disputes and are not conceiled, wire tap law is about conceiled recording
QuoteQuote:
This "intent" logic is a slippery slope. The guy could have sold it to a reality show or a news service.
as I said, this needs to bedetermined
QuoteQuote:
He was arrested for recording it during a raid on his house.
no he recorded it during the comittment of a crime on the road, not a raid in his house
QuoteQuote:
By your logic, the Paparazzi would be next to shut down.
if the photos go beyond the normal limits of privacy and accessible in public, they are liable for invasion of privacy suits. If they violate laws, or blackmail the subject then it is a crime, but the law specifically states embarrasement is not a crime on it's own, so stars that get caught on film, in public doing stupid things are fair game, That is pretty well established in the courts.
QuoteQuote:
I took this from a stationary vehicle. I could have sent this to the news paper.
and your point about the photo is? It is in a public place viewed from a public place, or private place you own, so what are you questioning
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
cop, guy, photo industry, photography, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DC Police - Illegal to take photos of people or police in public MRRiley Photographic Technique 109 08-06-2010 10:46 AM
Architecture Old Prison HDR timstone Photo Critique 15 04-20-2010 06:46 PM
Architecture Prison timstone Post Your Photos! 7 04-15-2010 01:17 AM
Architecture A Brutalist Prison paulyrichard Post Your Photos! 7 02-02-2010 11:39 AM
Martyr's prison ikonographics Post Your Photos! 5 05-30-2009 08:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top