When reading about photography and surveillance I find it
interesting how police offers would arrest someone for video taping an event.
The Rochester woman was well within her rights to take the video on her own
property, and her neighbors confirmed she was not doing anything to endanger
the police officers safety. Sometimes I think it is because the police offers
do not want to be video taped incase they do something wrong. If the police
officer were fully informed of the law he would know that this was okay for the
woman to do. It makes me think as if the police officer had something to be
suspicious of. In some of the articles it talks about photographing on-duty
officer. The idea of both parties consent does make sense, but if you are not
doing anything wrong I do not see why there would be a problem in the first
place. In one of the articles it mentions how if there was not two-party
consent, but it displays the officers in a positive light the charges will be
dropped. I find this very troubling. I personally feel like this is one more
law to further control the nations citizens.
1 comment:
The arrest for recording an event is kinda wrong. It is weird that an average person is filmed 200 times a day and yet capturing a cop on film will get you sent to jail for 200 times a day. Cops do not want to be filmed because if they are caught doing something wrong they will make all the cops look bad. If the cops look bad then people will lose faith in them. Losing trusts in them would be very dangerous because people may start to do whatever they want.
Post a Comment