I don't know anything about the author of this piece so don't shoot the messenger!
1 posted on
06/03/2010 6:59:40 AM PDT by
RoseyT
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
To: RoseyT
Of course, if someone hoodlum attacked some innocent person, the police would hope somebody filmed the hoodlum without the hoodlum's consent.
40 posted on
06/03/2010 4:24:37 PM PDT by
magellan
To: RoseyT
So they (governments, businesses, basically anyone that can afford a camera) can photograph us, private citizens, because we’re in public and have no expectation, but we can’t photograph them even though they’re public employees.
42 posted on
06/03/2010 4:57:59 PM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: RoseyT
“...Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland...”
Cutting edge experts in Soviet governance. Lefties love police abuse as long as they are in power to control who gets abused.
To: RoseyT
Same should be true of recording devices used by a officers.
Cuts both ways.
48 posted on
06/03/2010 7:08:45 PM PDT by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
To: RoseyT
Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland...home states of Obama, Dick Durbin, Barnie Frank, Teddy Kennedy, Elijah Cummings and Steny Hoyer. What's the surprise?
50 posted on
06/03/2010 7:09:36 PM PDT by
JrsyJack
(a healthy dose of buckshot will probably get you the last word in any argument.)
To: RoseyT; Travis McGee
Surveillance for thee but not for me ping
54 posted on
06/03/2010 9:14:33 PM PDT by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson