Posted on 10/17/2025 4:02:17 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
“That is not what the First Amendment does.”
That is precisely what the first amendment does. The right to record police from public locations has been determined to be protected free speech.
https://columbialawreview.org/content/free-speech-and-democracy-in-the-video-age/
“I thought most cops in big cities had body cameras now.”
In large part they do, but the problem is they still retain the ability to turn off or mute their body cam to hide what they do not want to be heard.
I watched one recording where they muted their mics but one officer didn’t get the mute order, and the discussion leaked and involved what charge they they could concoct to avoid releasing a detainee who had broken no laws. They even went around asking other bystanders if they felt offended by anything the detainee has said.
You do that. Let us know the response
In that moment he was the press. He was also peaceably assembled axis the street at his house. There is nothing illegal about filming things on the street in front of your house.
“The judge override the jury decision, makes me ask the question, is this yet another two tier law structure with racial favoritism?”
Have you seen the video? The Lieutenant was an ass.
I wonder what they are supposed to do when a persons right to record ends up being de-facto witness intimidation, even if unintentional. Perhaps this could have been resolved with more patience and less “authoritaaaay” but I’m not wholly on board with filming witnesses as they give testimony.
Skin color HAD to be made central to the issue in order to force a decision.
As to judge’s action, this is not uncommon. Every jury trial is subject to final verdict of the presiding judge. It is the judge that either accepts or refuses the jury conclusion.
In same vein all of the DNC screamings about DJT being a felon, etc, were all Bullshitte until the judge passes sentence. Until that point, sentencing, no one is guilty of any crime. So, calling someone a felon is a lie.
It also protects people to say stupid $hit like that. And btw, you’re wrong.
Probably not "recording while black". A lot of public servants, far too many, get very upset when We the People make video recordings of them doing their jobs in public. At best, they're just a bunch of arrogant jerks. At worst, they're engaged in criminal activity and don't want it recorded.
The first amendment is pretty wide ranging. It includes freedom of religion and of the press.
That seems to be the consensus of the thread.
I noticed that.
“The first amendment is pretty wide ranging. It includes freedom of religion and of the press.”
Pretty narrow. It only refers to limiting Congress.
“The First Amendment allows him to speak out against the government without repercussion.”
Please cite the 1st Amendment where this is.
“I believe it has been ruled under 1A rights.”
The 1st grants no rights.
...and to petition the government for a redress of grievances...
But that can be pretty wide open I suppose.
Your excerpt fails to provide true context.
“That is precisely what the first amendment does. The right to record police from public locations has been determined to be protected free speech.”
The 1st provides NO rights.
Unusual, but by no means unprecedented. In legal jargon, it is called "judgment notwithstanding verdict." The standard for overturning a jury verdict is high. Under NY law the trail judge can overturn a jury verdict if, in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based upon the overwhelming weight of the evidence established at trial and no reasonable juror could have found in favor of the defendant given the evidence presented at trial.
Fix it for me. ;-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.