What has that to do with anything?

" . . . I wonder how many of these cameras have picked up stolen vehicle pursuits? Sent the criminal charge to the owner who now has to appear in court to answer for a crime he did not commit, and was not ticketed for by officers."

LOL. Are you serious?
"Whoa, your honor dude, I meant to report my Pacer stolen, but I was, like, you know, hanging in the dorm with my posse, playing Halo and smoking some- I mean, munching some tots and soda and, well, like, before we knew it, it was 2:00 AM, and, like . . . Dude! This is so not fair that I get a ticket!"

How does the camera get you to sign the citation?

It does not. The citation is mailed to the registered owner no matter who was behind the wheel. There is no officer statement and most of these cameras would hardly get a pic of the driver merely the tag. I wonder how many of these cameras have picked up stolen vehicle pursuits? Sent the criminal charge to the owner who now has to appear in court to answer for a crime he did not commit, and was not ticketed for by officers.

Interesting tech with interesting usages. It should be apparent though that this does give authorities a toe hold in tracking individuals and monitoring that could fit quite well with other unwarrented searches.

Serious, or trying to be funny?

Thanks again!

Good point. Make sure you don't buy a house located in the middle of an intersection.

Let's say you could control the corruption and manipulation. Do you doubt that at the drop of a hat like another terrorist attack for example they would not be used to spy on Americans?

Even if that makes me a nut unreasonable extremist, that doesn't have anything to do with police misconduct or the concept that We The People hold the government accountable and not the other way around.

James, it's not about cameras. Cameras are just a technology. Technologies can always be used for good or evil.

How could The War on Terror not devolve into protecting the government from all who question it? Even if the people who started off this nonsense had the best of intentions, the expansion of power would be too great a temptation for the megalomaniacs.

"I guess the gummit’s next major fear will be my carrying a concealed video camera under my coat."

Don't laugh too loudly. That camera crew in New Orleans got roughed up, too.

There's a pending bill in congress that would allow LEOs (law enforcement officers) to carry a concealed weapon with them where ever they go while either on or OFF duty. Anywhere! The federal bill would permit not only inter-jurisdictional travel with a weapon, but also interstate travel with that concealed weapon.

Now I'm in total agreement that we should permit folks access to their firearms regardless of the jurisdiction, or state, especially if the off duty cop happens to be standing at the scene and witnesses a crime that requires the needs to defend him/herself or others. My gripe is that this federal law would create as Doug said, "some elite class of people" that are allowed access to firearms while those of us non-LEOs are deigned our basic rights of self-defense.

My South Carolina Drivers License is honored in all fifty states and in most foreign countries. I can rent a car anywhere in the nation and legally drive where ever I choose. So while I note that the Bill of Rights makes no mention of my right to drive a motor vehicle, it DOES note the acknowledgement of my inalienable right to bare arms.

So why is my South Carolina Concealed Weapons Permit valid only in the handful of states that SLED says have reciprocity with SC while LEOs are to get a ‘free pass’?

I guess the gummit’s next major fear will be my carrying a concealed video camera under my coat.

---
Just remember: 1) The FAA prevented an estimated total of FOUR licensed concealed weapons permit holders from bringing their defensive weapon with them when they boarded those aircraft on September 11th. 2) The State of NY prevented any of the average law abiding passenger on that Long Island Commuter train to even HAVE a permit to carry a firearm on that fateful December day in 1993. 3) Federal Law prevented any firearms from being within 1000 feet of that Columbine High School in 1999.

Yup, only the Plantation Massah LEOs are to be allowed to defend themselves. The plantation slaves will just have to figure out how to fend for themselves.

I appreciated your article: If you don’t have anything to hide..., and I am in complete agreement with your statement, “Law enforcement officials are not some elite class of people who are above scrutiny.”

I would like to extend what you said beyond uniformed police officers and add that members of the judiciary are not some elite class of people who are above scrutiny either.

I am providing the following statement from http://victimsoflaw.net/9thcircuit2.htm
American Justice Denied
Responds to the Ninth Circuit Pro Se Task Force Report

In his essay Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should a Judge Be Subject to Suit?"
Robert Craig Waters states:
"In the American judicial system, few more serious threats to individual liberty can be imagined than a corrupt judge... Clothed with the power of the state and authorized to pass judgment on the most basic aspects of everyday life, a judge can deprive citizens of liberty and property in complete disregard of the Constitution. The injuries inflicted may be severe and enduring. Yet, the recent expansion of the judge-made exception to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1871, chief vehicle for redress of civil rights violations, has rendered state judges immune from suit even for the most bizarre, corrupt, or abusive of judicial acts." (Emphasis added)
When federal courts are called upon to provide protection against state court corruption, all of the Circuits must stop and listen and give justice where it is due. In so doing, judges at lower levels would soon understand that their mission is no longer "greed and corruption" as usual, but rather justice - and meaningful justice - for ALL because corruption is going to be in plain view of public scrutiny. As for the politics of unpopularity, rest assured that the public will be just as quick to defend a fair and honest judge as it would be to remove a dishonest one.

I have personally witnessed and documented state and federal felonies committed against a disabled person spanning an 18 year period by a corrupt judiciary in the family court system.

Each and every offense which could be attributed to a uniformed officer, with the exception of two incidences, was a direct result of an unlawful order issued by a corrupt judiciary.

While the victim could have conceivably had rights of redress against the law enforcement officers, the judiciary has been unlawfully sheltered from all criminal charges by the refusal of law enforcement to accept a criminal complaint.

I would greatly appreciate seeing more public focus on corruption in the judiciary. When we start removing these criminals from the bench we will also be removing the protectorate for the uniformed officers who violate our laws.

The 25x optical zoom on these is absolutely incredible. Perfect for catching those billy club blows or any sleight of hand up close and personal. You could probably read the search warrant from 100 feet.

Very true. But they think they are, and that thinking is validated by knee-jerk law-n-order types who have actively given police the notion that they are somehow annointed. Due to a variety of factors, too many cops are cops for all the wrong reasons, and that includes administration and city hall types.

I can't stand elitism or double standards, so I feel compelled to point them out whenever I encounter them.

Seldom are we on the same side as the ACLU but on this one they have a valid point. Those in authority, from the police to the judge, are not above the law and should be held accountable for their wrong doing the same as any other citizen.

The majority of the people are innocent of any crime and yet we are under the same surveillance as the criminal. The tactics they use are somewhat like giving the whole classroom an aspirin when only one child has a headache.