??? What if i shot him first??? WHAT???

oops, didn't see your second post. He shouldn't go to jail

The officer should be discharged for not following proper protocol: immediately subduing the motorcyclist with his taser.

The police in Indiana think it's ok to taser a 10yr child with behavior problems. http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076

Perhaps you were looking for this link?
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/89713207.html

Shot copied the wrong one:(

He was clearly backing the bike up. The video I saw had no audio, so I don't know what the officer might have said with regards to standing down and the sidearm was put back away without ever pointing it, so I suspect he was instructued to turn off the bike and the sidearm was put away when the biker complied. I didn't see anything wrong with what the officer did, especially considering what the biker admits to doing (cutting off cars, driving 80+ MPH, doing wheelies, etc). He's lucky they didn't just arrest him and charge him with reckless driving or reckless endangerment.

That said, I do not believe recording an arrest (something the cops do themselves) is a criminal violation. If it is, then the law should apply both ways and law enforcement should never be allowed to videorecord a private citizen without their consent as well.

Hey, I fully agree that the Motorcyclist was in the wrong. I believe that, legally, he would be justifiably charged with reckless driving. The guy was endangering lives, yadda yadda.

But does back slowly up from an unmarked car edging towards you mean that a police officer is justified in pulling a firearm? I dunno....

In any case, the real culprits here are the State laws that insanely decide to interpret the wiretapping laws as not applying to law enforcement, but instead applying to public servants, whether they are clearly marked as such or not.

Still though, if you believe that the laws and the system that enforces them are essentially just, what is the problem here? Disagreeing with a law is no defense in a court of law.

Lock him up, yo.

Did you read the whole article. I would bet he wins and the wiretapping charges get thrown out. The courts have been upholding that actions while on duty by public servants are public actions and therefore there is no expectation of privacy. He stays the course and he will prevail, no problem. But not hearing the sound, I still have no problem with the officer removing the sidearm from it's holster. The weapon was never pointed at anything except the ground and watching closely, the officer's finger was never inside of the trigger guard nor was the safety removed.

And I think, had he not posted it to you tube, just used it as evidence, there would not have been any other charges.

But they are still trumped up and will be shot down in court, if the prosecutor actually decides to pursue it to begin with.

@sword

"Lock him up, yo. "

For pulling a gun? He didn´t even aim at him and made it instantly clear that he is from police!
You have a sick opinion of using states force! In another thread you are so against the "powerful" state, but now you show your real face...putting a police officer into jail for pulling a gun at somebody who dramatically risks lives of others, you are such an idiot friendly sword...

*in front of somebody

Actually Draugnar, they haven't, at least not uniformly. The only example in the article of Peter Ballantine likely resulted in dropped wiretapping charges and a financial settlement because he was a 63 year old man who was punched around and knocked to the ground for holding his recorder... not because of any legal principles surrounding the legitimacy of wiretapping charges.

I don't think it changes anything that he posted the video on YouTube, The cited illegality after all was the filming itself.

For what it's worth, I agree (hope) that he will avoid being sentenced, or at least that the sentence will be significantly reduced.

Critically however, people are increasingly terrified and bullied into not recording incidents with the police. I know it looks bad, and it isn't fun to be recorded, but the thin skin of police should not be justification enough to eliminate one of the finest checks on police narratives that we have.

I support filming all interventions of police for precisely that reason.

Is "lock him up, yo" directed at the motorcyclist, perhaps?

Miro, I wasn't advocating that the officer go to jail, I was making the point that if you believe the police and courts in a representative democracy to be fundamentally just, that there ought to be no reason why the *Motorcyclist* shouldn't go to jail if the charge sticks.

I think officer was cavalier and unjustified in drawing his weapon but my problem wasn't with him.

I am sorry if my manner of expressing myself is misleading.

:P

I especially like however, that you have followed me to at least three threads, misinterpreted what I said, and then called me a moron, stupid, or an idiot. :)

It kind of puts your claims about others being trollish into a bit of perspective, eh? ;)

I am not the only one who were "mislead" by your writings...

"I especially like however, that you have followed me to at least three threads"

That`s easy just follow the smell of bullshit:-)

From the article, FS:

"Carlos Miller, a Miami journalist who runs the blog "Photography Is Not a Crime," said he has documented about 10 arrests since he started keeping track in 2007. Miller himself has been arrested twice for photographing the police. He won one case on appeal, he said, while the other was thrown out after the officer twice failed to appear in court."

"The ACLU of Florida filed a First Amendment lawsuit last month on behalf of a model who was arrested February 2009 in Boynton Beach. Fla. Her crime: videotaping an encounter between police officers and her teenage son at a movie theater. Prosecutors refused to file charges against Sharron Tasha Ford and her son."

"In Portsmouth, N.H., earlier this month, Adam Whitman, 20, and his brother were charged with wiretapping, a felony in the state for videotaping police on the Fourth of July when they were called to a party and ended up arresting 20 people, many for underage drinking.

A police spokesman told ABCNews.com that the wiretapping charges were being dropped."

Here are three more you must have pverlooked from the same article.

The biker belongs in jail for about 30 days (or at least to have his license revoked for 6 months) for his actions on the bike. I also find it interesting that they are calling it wiretapping. wiretapping is recording a conversation between third parties, none of whom are aware. In most states (48 of 50), audio recordings are allowed as long as one person involved in the conversation knows it is being recorded. And even in states where notification is required, consent is not. So I can tell you I am recording our conversation and you can protest all you want, but I can still record it. The same should apply to video recordings. The only limitation on any of these recordings should be releasing them to the public (ala youtube). That should require all parties' written consent.