The courts get one right! Our Constitutional rights protected!

[Guest]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/a-1st-amendment-victory-for-video/1518?tag=nl.e550

In short - person records 3 Boston cops arresting someone in the nation's oldest public park (Boston Common). Cops arrest videographer for illegal wiretapping and even allowing a suspect to escape.

Eventually, the videographer files suit claiming his 1st and 4th Ammendment rights were violated.

The court has AGREED saying that recording public officials IN PUBLIC doing their OFFICIAL DUTIES is PUBLIC and may be recorded.

[Guest]

You are so right. Seems that our current law enforcement personnel have become its "Them vs Us" that they need to learn they are here to serve us. Not Us serve them. As my FTO (Field Training Officer) told me many years ago.

To enforce the law, you have to obey the law.

How many times do you see patrol cars speeding for no reason, doing the California roll through stop signs, lane change with no signal, but then turn around and ticket Us for the same offense.

Then They wonder why there is no respect.

[Guest]

You are so right. Seems that our current law enforcement personnel have become its "Them vs Us" that they need to learn they are here to serve us. Not Us serve them. As my FTO (Field Training Officer) told me many years ago.

To enforce the law, you have to obey the law.

How many times do you see patrol cars speeding for no reason, doing the California roll through stop signs, lane change with no signal, but then turn around and ticket Us for the same offense.

Then They wonder why there is no respect.

What gets my goat is how they are always tailgating. Sometimes I feel like slamming on my brakes. How would they explain that in court?

[Guest]

VG, you slammed on your brakes to miss that "black dog." Guess that following to close by anyone is a shame and the county or state or locals can replace your car for you and write you a nice check from tax payers monies.

[Guest]

States, municipalities, etc. have "sovereign rights." If they (at their fault) damage your insured motor vehicle, they only have to cover your out-of-pocket costs (e.g., your deductible if you have collision coverage, and/or a rental car if you don't have rental reimbursement, and your accepted injury/out of work costs that are above and beyond your med pay or pip coverage.

[Guest]

States, municipalities, etc. have "sovereign rights." If they (at their fault) damage your insured motor vehicle, they only have to cover your out-of-pocket costs (e.g., your deductible if you have collision coverage, and/or a rental car if you don't have rental reimbursement, and your accepted injury/out of work costs that are above and beyond your med pay or pip coverage.

Well, if I got whiplash from avoiding that doggie, I would hire a shyster lawyer like John Edwards and sue for millions.

[Guest]

"Sovereign rights" does not excuse faulty driving practices. If you are breaking the law, just because you are law enforcement, you are at fault and can be sued individually. Then if you have a really good lawyer and he checks the training that the officer received, from his department, and it was recorded that they were told and shown not to tail gate, then you have an even better case, IE., mo' money, honey. If they never received the training, and it was available, much mo' money, sweetheart.