Weare PD seizes Copwatch cameras - Police abuse

Sponsor: http://FreeMindsTV.com - While I'm not sure these folks were *officially* with Copwatch, that's certainly the activity they were trying to do. Was it necessary to steal their cameras AND cars AND did Weare, New Hampshire cops really chain a woman to a pole?

I have a call in to chief Begin to find out what he has to say for his men. Note also they are alleged to have confiscated a firearm and alleged to have provided no receipts.

Here are the latest incoming details:
http://forum.freekeene.com/index.php?topic=2839.msg31488#msg31488

Please consider donating to the service that allowed live audio to be broadcast and recorded during this incident:
http://Porcupine411.com

How you can buy an ad on the Ridley Report
http://RidleyReport.com/Ad

right to record ron paul wiretapping, ridleyreport copwatch cop watch weare new hampshire. Police staters free state project police abuse nh jailed prison dave ridley report charged liberty civil disobedience. live free or die cars libertarian, vehicles traffic stop pulled over obama gun carrier open carry guns firearms cameras second amendment first freedom of the press.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• copwatch
• police
• abuse
• cops
• free
• state
• project
• weare
• new
• hampshire
• ron
• paul
• civil
• disobedience
• obama
• gun
• carrier
• open
• carry

[borderraven]

Cops are among the class of people who volunteer to serve in government, and they swear under oath to serve the public. We the People delegate certain authority to our public servants, but we never give up our 10th Amendment power over them. We have protected rights to monitor our government.

See

O'grady vs Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Glik v Cunniffe 2011

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 I wasn't wrong. I've said the exact same thing in these types of conversations before, and people have understood what I ment. Just because you did not read it as intended does not mean that I was wrong, it means I should perhaps word it better in the future as to not confuse others of my actual meaning. Also, my ego is not the one that needs checked, it is yours kid.You quote my words and then make it seem that I ment how you wanted me to mean, in order to get your point across.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: Doesn't matter what you 'meant to say", What matters is what you said.

You yourself enforced this by trying to justify what you said instead of admitting it was wrong and restating it in a correct manner.

I'm not twisting your words at all. Quite the opposite as I've been quoting your exact words over and over.

We've already verified that your comment is not factual. All I'm doing now is seeing just how far your ego will go to keep from admitting that you were wrong.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 Coney does matter, especially when its during a discussion thats not face to face. by right, I ment right under the law, and such laws I have already mentioned give them that right. You can twist my words as much as you want, you and me both know what I ment.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: "Convey"? Doesn't matter what you tried to convey. What matters is that you made a statement as fact, that wasn't.

Talking about two different things? Nope. We're both talking about your untrue comment.

What matters is the fact that you said "If you film a police officer without his permission they have the right to sieze the footage."

And you have spent a full day now doing everything but actually admitting that this statement of yours is false.

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 my original comment was ment to portray the fact that a cop "can" confiscate your camera in the aspect that if they want it, they will find a way to get it. So you and me have been talking about to different things the entire time. Also, I understand the Federal law pertains to secretly recording someone, but states have admended the federal statue to include openly recording devices.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral: I never said they couldn't, but that's not what we are talking about.

I have never seen a legal backing behind your comment that an officer can confiscate a camera just because he doesn't want to be recorded.

So far, you have verified that such a law doesn't exist.

"Surrpetitious recordings"? I've never heard of that particular statute. Doesn't matter. It can't be surreptitious if the officer had a chance to refuse consent, now could it?

[HK3StarGeneral]

@Pafoofnik1 Can you not make the connection that if an officer does not want to be filmed, he can charge someone with plenty of offenses in order to obtain said video tape, one of those charges being Surrpetitious recordings. I never said it was right, but they can do it, and any thought to the contrary is just ignorance.

[Pafoofnik1]

@HK3StarGeneral said: "The prove I provided did agree with my original statement, "

No, they did not. There was not a single quote in any of your cites that said an officer can confiscate a camera just because he didn;t want to record.

Then you said: "if the officer does not consent to the taping then the person taping is then in violation of Federal Wiretapping Laws. "

Like I keep saying, please cite and quote the law or statute that says this.

So far, you're just blowing hot air.