Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police 1232

macinrack writes to mention a story about a New Hampshire man who was arrested for videotaping police on his doorstep, using a fairly standard security camera system. He was officially charged with 'two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device.' From the article: "The security cameras record sound and audio directly to a videocassette recorder inside the house, and the Gannons posted warnings about the system, Janet Gannon said. On Tuesday night, Michael Gannon brought a videocassette to the police department, and asked to speak with someone in 'public relations,' his wife said and police reported. Gannon wanted to lodge a complaint against Karlis, who had come to the family's house while investigating their sons, Janet Gannon said. She said Karlis showed up late at night, was rude, and refused to leave when they asked him."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NH Man Arrested for Videotaping Police

Comments Filter:
  • by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:30PM (#15630327)
    Police instead arrested Gannon, charging him with two felony counts of violating state eavesdropping and wiretap law by using an electronic device to record Karlis without the detective's consent.

    Doesn't he know that the President is the only personl legally allowed to wire tap?
  • by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:32PM (#15630352)
    The law cannot protect you from the police.
  • by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:35PM (#15630397)
    Yes, but the summary did not say a $5 sign ... I'm sure Gannon's signs were the cheap ones from WalMart ... for about $1 ... and you know those just don't hold up in court.
  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:38PM (#15630438)
    By the way, isn't New Hampshire supposed to be the state all the Libertarians are moving to
    That's why the police are taking a hard line. God Damn hippies are movin' in.
  • Muppets (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anne_Nonymous ( 313852 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:45PM (#15630534) Homepage Journal
    >> arrested for videotaping police

    I can imagine the Muppets' skit now, "Piiiiggggggs onnnnn Taaaaaappppe".
  • by shrubya ( 570356 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:51PM (#15630588) Homepage Journal
    Huh? There's plenty of Libertarian hippies []. Not quite as many as gun-nuts or anarcho-capitalists, but they're in there.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:54PM (#15630623)
    in prison for videotaping it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @03:55PM (#15630643)
    They would have to stop spinning first.
  • by Zack ( 44 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .hairodez.> on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:13PM (#15630883) Journal
    Did you really just source the Onion to try to prove a point?


    No... you didn't.... did you?
  • Re:Ugh! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Simplulo ( 250142 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:21PM (#15630988) Homepage
    My home town is Simi Valley, home of the Rodney King [] trial. Think of all the rioting that was caused by someone videotaping police brutality. Mercifully this will never happen in New Hampshire. Pass the soma, please.
  • Re:Ugh! (Score:2, Funny)

    by jazman_777 ( 44742 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:31PM (#15631128) Homepage
    This occured in Alabama.

    Yo, Vinny! How are ya?

  • by misanthrope101 ( 253915 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:42PM (#15631247)
    Don't you mean, illegally?
    Apparently you just don't get it. Liberals rarely do, so don't take it personally. The President of the United States cannot do anything illegal, because the very act of commission on his part legitimizes his decision. Because we are in a state of Presidentially-declared war, everything, and I mean everything, he does is under the aegis of the War on Terror. When the President makes a decision, it is within the umbrella of the authority given to him by the necessities of the War on Terror, and that fact retroactively makes his actions legal, regardless of what the text of the law literally says. It's as if his decision actually reached backwards in the space-time continuum, subtly coloring, perhaps even redefining, the meaning of words like "torture," "surveillance," "warrant," etc.

    This authority is vital to national security, possibly to our very survival, and the only thing that could possibly void that power would be the election of a candidate from the Democratic party. If that unlikely event were to come to pass, then yes, the President would be capable of committing an illegal act by authorizing actions in violation of written law. In, and only in, a Democrat-run White House is the President capable of authorizing or committing an illegal act.

  • by Monkeman ( 827301 ) <[Monkeman] [at] []> on Thursday June 29, 2006 @04:54PM (#15631404)
    Woah, how'd I get to digg?
  • by alanthenerd ( 639252 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:07PM (#15631581)
    The security cameras record sound and audio

    Both sound and audio eh? Funny, I kinda thought they were the same thing

  • by jonfelder ( 669529 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:09PM (#15631596)

    Did you hear that? That was the sound of a joke going right over your head.
  • by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:13PM (#15631629) Journal

    ...or, as my mother used to say while she was beating me, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @05:34PM (#15631868)
    Yeah, I always thought a constitutional right deserved whatever protection was necessry to preserve it, including a personal act of war against the government, along with all the collateral damage that entails.

    So, if the police try to bust down your door without a search warrant, you should have every right to kill them. Let the courts sort it all out later (and, of course, be prepared to fry if you claimed a right you in fact did not have).

    Of course, the killing of police officers will certainly bring about reinforcements. That's when you bring in the heavy artillery, and remotely detonate all the explosives you had stashed in strategic locations, like the dumpsters beind city hall, all the while broadcasting an amplified voice requesting that your constitutional rights be respected. Personally, I prefer kilowatt CO2 IR lasers on a turret in the attic to keep the engagement local and minimize collateral damage, but powering them is a bit hard.

    Naturally, the state has more resources than you do, and you will likely be apprehended or, more likely, killed, but not before you remotely detonate the dirty nuke you had hidden in a cargo container in one of the many ports -- what's it cost to buy an old Russian nuke these days? $40k? It's not like you need an ICBM to deliver it. You did plan ahead, didn't you?

    If the result of one cop acting like an asshole was a good chance of tens or hundreds of thousands of people killed in the collateral damage of your retalliation against the state for violating your constitutional rights, you can be sure there would be a hell of a lot more restraint on the part of the state, regardless of the morality of such a response. (Innocent people? Bullshit! "They" clearly are standing by while the Constitution is erroded to the point where you have to use such force, and are most definitely part of the problem.)

    The bottom line is you have no constitutional rights unless you are willing to fight and die for them. And frankly, if you don't have them, you might as well be dead. And if you're going to die, might as well have company.

    I've often thought that homegrown "terrorists" like McVeigh had somewhat of a legitimate complaint against corrupt goverment. His big mistake was in the premature use of excessive force before a standoff escalated to the point where it might have been justified (i.e. you send rocket grenades into my compound without a warrant, I blow up your government building).

    I would love to see someone who's constitutional rights are being clearly violated not take it lying down, but stand up and fight back to a degree that leaves the corrupt government scared shitless, all the while broadcasting the events as they unfold.

    Of course, that requires planning (and expense) for a confrontation that one hopes never happens.

  • Re:sigh (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 29, 2006 @09:45PM (#15633379)
    So he destroyed that verb too?

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers