AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Having been raised in Illinois, I'd always considered it the land where regular, reasonable people lived. That was reinforced when I became a trucker and have since been through all the contiguous 48 more than once; a trip to Newark or even Detroit will show you how different people separated by even short distances can be.
But things change, I guess. The Illinois-ans I was raised with wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I don't know how long this has been on the books, but before recording equipment became ubiquitous, it wasn't relevant to the average citizen.
Here's the link, for people who hate reading things pasted from my phone:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e106.html
15 Years in Prison…. for
Recording a Traffic Stop
by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com
Recently by Eric Peters: Left
to Pass… Please
Louis Frobe is facing hard
time. Fifteen years in prison
– the sort of sentence
typically handed out for
crimes such as second-
degree murder and rape.
Frobe’s crime?
He recorded a traffic stop.
Stopped for speeding in
Lindenhurst, Illinois, Frobe
attempted to document the
event, including the
conversation between
himself and the traffic cop.
After all, the cop was
recording him and the cop’s
video/audio record of the
traffic stop could and
probably would be used as
evidence against Frobe in
court, if Frobe decided to
contest the speeding ticket.
Moreover, Frobe was out in
public – where the courts
have ruled there is no
expectation of privacy,
period – and the cop who
pulled Frobe over is a public
official, performing his
official duties.
But in some states, they –
that is, the cops – see
themselves as a protected
class, entitled to special
privileges, including a legal
double-standard that says
certain laws apply to us but
not to them . This includes
audio and video recording
of them performing their
(cough) “duties” – which in
a truly masterful display of
Orwellian Newspeak and
doublethink – they equate
with eavesdropping – and
for which they will try to
slap you with a felony and
destroy your life.
Here’s what happened to
Frobe, from the actual audio
recording of his traffic stop:
Cop: “That recording?”
Frobe: “Yes, yes, I’ve been
…”
Cop: “Was it recording all of
our conversation?”
Frobe: “Yes, officer.”
Cop: “Guess what? You were
eavesdropping on our
conversation. I did not give
you permission to do so.
Step out of the vehicle.”
The happy malevolence –
the sadism – of the cop can
be detected merely by
reading the transcript. You
can imagine how Frobe
probably felt at this
moment.
Frobe was handcuffed,
carted off to jail and
charged under state law
with felony eavesdropping,
which could lead to a prison
term of fifteen years. He is
now in the position of
having to spend a large sum
of money on legal
representation, and
meanwhile, his life is in
limbo. Until the nightmare
ends, he must endure every
moment imaging the
prospect of spending
possibly a third of his life
among the OJs and Scott
Petersens of this world. His
life is effectively ruined –
even if he is ultimately
vindicated by the courts.
The law, written for
obviously different purposes
(ironically, to protect
unwary citizens who have
had their phones tapped by
investigators) is being used
as a brutal tool of
intimidation against
ordinary citizens such as
Frobe – or you and me –
who dare to question the
absolute, unaccountable
authority of cops.
The prospect of a felony
conviction – ruinous to a
person’s reputation, their
ability to find or maintain
employment – let alone the
prospect of being sent to
prison, possibly to live for
years among violent thugs –
certainly gets the job done.
There’s already a big, hairy
thumb pressing down one
side of the scales of justice.
In court, the word of a cop
is considered almost holy
writ,merely by dint of his
being a cop. Meanwhile, the
word of a citizen is
essentially worthless. Even if
the citizen is a person of
unimpeachable character.
The cop says the citizen did
(or said) “x.” The citizen
disputes this. Whose version
will the court accept?
We all know the answer.
And we also know that cops
can be corrupt, lying thugs.
The video and audio
evidence of this is
irrefutable. YouTube has
become a sort of public
forum for revealing the
actual conduct of some cops,
in a way that cannot be
denied or explained away
by such bromides as “he was
resisting arrest.” A recent,
horrid example being the
case of the homeless
schizophrenic who was
literally beaten to death by
a gang of cops; the incident
was – fortunately – recorded
and it’s clear – thanks to the
video evidence – that beat-
down was egregiously
unjustified; a murder , in
plain English.
Which is precisely why some
cops – and some states – are
so determined to use any
tactic, including the threat of
a decade or more in prison,
to keep what they do off the
record and unaccountable to
anyone other than
themselves.
“They had audio and they
had video on me, but I’m
not allowed to do it (record)
to them,” Frobe said later.
“I’m in a private car on a
public street and it’s a
public official. Why
shouldn’t I be able to record
what’s going on to prove my
innocence?” he asks.
Why, indeed.
In law, there was once a
precept known as malicious
(or criminal) intent. This
was an essential attribute as
far as defining any given
action as criminal.
Eavesdropping laws, for
example, were written to
protect people from having
their private conversations
recorded (absent a court
order) without their
knowledge or consent, for
purposes of using those
recordings against them –
whether in the context of a
court proceeding or
otherwise (such as
blackmail).
Where is the malicious/
criminal intent in the case of
a citizen documenting his
own arrest? How, in any
way, is the citizen
perpetrating a harm against
the cop?
The answer, clearly, is that
the harm at issue is the
“harm” not merely of
possibly revealing that cops
are not always saints (and
sometimes, worse than
devils) but, more deeply, of
taking that big hairy thumb
off the scales of justice. Of
equalizing things between
citizens and cops.
A video or audio recording
means it’s no longer John
Q’s (legally worthless) word
against the legally near-
unchallengeable word of a
cop.
A video recording of a cop
berating (or beating) a
citizen – especially if it gets
out on YouTube – well, we
can’t have that. It
undermines respect for The
Law.
Higher courts have
repeatedly thrown out
arrests of citizens based on
this twisted misuse of
eavesdropping statutes,
declaring them
unconstitutional violations of
the First Amendment,
among other things. But that
hasn’t prevented endlessly
insolent police departments
in Illinois and Maryland and
elsewhere from continuing
to threaten people with
arrest and imprisonment –
the mere prospect of which
is sufficient to cow most
people into abject, cringing
submission, since for most
people, even the thought of
being charged with a felony,
no matter how legally
unsupportable and even if it
will ultimately be thrown
out, is a chilling prospect.
And that’s precisely what’s
wanted: Fear – and
submission.
The Law is irrelevant – not
just what the courts rule The
Law to be but right down to
the core of it, the
Constitution of the United
States itself. It is effectively
null and void. Authority
does what it wills – because
it is Authority.
The malignant precedent for
this was set at the national
level by The Chimp, who
brazenly deeeecided he was
not bound by any law and
would rule by decree. It was
called “executive order” or
“executive privilege” – and
the public blithely accepted
it. Now it is routine practice,
performed casually by The
Chimp’s successor and every
Little Chimp on down the
line.
It will take a few brave
souls such as Louis Frobe,
willing to put themselves in
harm’s way in defense of a
principle, to put an end to
this. If it is even possible to
still do so at this late hour.
I hope it’s not too late.
But I fear it may be.
But things change, I guess. The Illinois-ans I was raised with wouldn't have allowed this to happen. I don't know how long this has been on the books, but before recording equipment became ubiquitous, it wasn't relevant to the average citizen.
Here's the link, for people who hate reading things pasted from my phone:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e106.html
15 Years in Prison…. for
Recording a Traffic Stop
by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com
Recently by Eric Peters: Left
to Pass… Please
Louis Frobe is facing hard
time. Fifteen years in prison
– the sort of sentence
typically handed out for
crimes such as second-
degree murder and rape.
Frobe’s crime?
He recorded a traffic stop.
Stopped for speeding in
Lindenhurst, Illinois, Frobe
attempted to document the
event, including the
conversation between
himself and the traffic cop.
After all, the cop was
recording him and the cop’s
video/audio record of the
traffic stop could and
probably would be used as
evidence against Frobe in
court, if Frobe decided to
contest the speeding ticket.
Moreover, Frobe was out in
public – where the courts
have ruled there is no
expectation of privacy,
period – and the cop who
pulled Frobe over is a public
official, performing his
official duties.
But in some states, they –
that is, the cops – see
themselves as a protected
class, entitled to special
privileges, including a legal
double-standard that says
certain laws apply to us but
not to them . This includes
audio and video recording
of them performing their
(cough) “duties” – which in
a truly masterful display of
Orwellian Newspeak and
doublethink – they equate
with eavesdropping – and
for which they will try to
slap you with a felony and
destroy your life.
Here’s what happened to
Frobe, from the actual audio
recording of his traffic stop:
Cop: “That recording?”
Frobe: “Yes, yes, I’ve been
…”
Cop: “Was it recording all of
our conversation?”
Frobe: “Yes, officer.”
Cop: “Guess what? You were
eavesdropping on our
conversation. I did not give
you permission to do so.
Step out of the vehicle.”
The happy malevolence –
the sadism – of the cop can
be detected merely by
reading the transcript. You
can imagine how Frobe
probably felt at this
moment.
Frobe was handcuffed,
carted off to jail and
charged under state law
with felony eavesdropping,
which could lead to a prison
term of fifteen years. He is
now in the position of
having to spend a large sum
of money on legal
representation, and
meanwhile, his life is in
limbo. Until the nightmare
ends, he must endure every
moment imaging the
prospect of spending
possibly a third of his life
among the OJs and Scott
Petersens of this world. His
life is effectively ruined –
even if he is ultimately
vindicated by the courts.
The law, written for
obviously different purposes
(ironically, to protect
unwary citizens who have
had their phones tapped by
investigators) is being used
as a brutal tool of
intimidation against
ordinary citizens such as
Frobe – or you and me –
who dare to question the
absolute, unaccountable
authority of cops.
The prospect of a felony
conviction – ruinous to a
person’s reputation, their
ability to find or maintain
employment – let alone the
prospect of being sent to
prison, possibly to live for
years among violent thugs –
certainly gets the job done.
There’s already a big, hairy
thumb pressing down one
side of the scales of justice.
In court, the word of a cop
is considered almost holy
writ,merely by dint of his
being a cop. Meanwhile, the
word of a citizen is
essentially worthless. Even if
the citizen is a person of
unimpeachable character.
The cop says the citizen did
(or said) “x.” The citizen
disputes this. Whose version
will the court accept?
We all know the answer.
And we also know that cops
can be corrupt, lying thugs.
The video and audio
evidence of this is
irrefutable. YouTube has
become a sort of public
forum for revealing the
actual conduct of some cops,
in a way that cannot be
denied or explained away
by such bromides as “he was
resisting arrest.” A recent,
horrid example being the
case of the homeless
schizophrenic who was
literally beaten to death by
a gang of cops; the incident
was – fortunately – recorded
and it’s clear – thanks to the
video evidence – that beat-
down was egregiously
unjustified; a murder , in
plain English.
Which is precisely why some
cops – and some states – are
so determined to use any
tactic, including the threat of
a decade or more in prison,
to keep what they do off the
record and unaccountable to
anyone other than
themselves.
“They had audio and they
had video on me, but I’m
not allowed to do it (record)
to them,” Frobe said later.
“I’m in a private car on a
public street and it’s a
public official. Why
shouldn’t I be able to record
what’s going on to prove my
innocence?” he asks.
Why, indeed.
In law, there was once a
precept known as malicious
(or criminal) intent. This
was an essential attribute as
far as defining any given
action as criminal.
Eavesdropping laws, for
example, were written to
protect people from having
their private conversations
recorded (absent a court
order) without their
knowledge or consent, for
purposes of using those
recordings against them –
whether in the context of a
court proceeding or
otherwise (such as
blackmail).
Where is the malicious/
criminal intent in the case of
a citizen documenting his
own arrest? How, in any
way, is the citizen
perpetrating a harm against
the cop?
The answer, clearly, is that
the harm at issue is the
“harm” not merely of
possibly revealing that cops
are not always saints (and
sometimes, worse than
devils) but, more deeply, of
taking that big hairy thumb
off the scales of justice. Of
equalizing things between
citizens and cops.
A video or audio recording
means it’s no longer John
Q’s (legally worthless) word
against the legally near-
unchallengeable word of a
cop.
A video recording of a cop
berating (or beating) a
citizen – especially if it gets
out on YouTube – well, we
can’t have that. It
undermines respect for The
Law.
Higher courts have
repeatedly thrown out
arrests of citizens based on
this twisted misuse of
eavesdropping statutes,
declaring them
unconstitutional violations of
the First Amendment,
among other things. But that
hasn’t prevented endlessly
insolent police departments
in Illinois and Maryland and
elsewhere from continuing
to threaten people with
arrest and imprisonment –
the mere prospect of which
is sufficient to cow most
people into abject, cringing
submission, since for most
people, even the thought of
being charged with a felony,
no matter how legally
unsupportable and even if it
will ultimately be thrown
out, is a chilling prospect.
And that’s precisely what’s
wanted: Fear – and
submission.
The Law is irrelevant – not
just what the courts rule The
Law to be but right down to
the core of it, the
Constitution of the United
States itself. It is effectively
null and void. Authority
does what it wills – because
it is Authority.
The malignant precedent for
this was set at the national
level by The Chimp, who
brazenly deeeecided he was
not bound by any law and
would rule by decree. It was
called “executive order” or
“executive privilege” – and
the public blithely accepted
it. Now it is routine practice,
performed casually by The
Chimp’s successor and every
Little Chimp on down the
line.
It will take a few brave
souls such as Louis Frobe,
willing to put themselves in
harm’s way in defense of a
principle, to put an end to
this. If it is even possible to
still do so at this late hour.
I hope it’s not too late.
But I fear it may be.
Last edited:
