dgg9

Can you cite the statute?

Since the news media with their cameras are recording people every day without their permission, it seems pretty clear the statute does not mean what you think.

I predict you'll find that the key difference is: expectation of privacy. If I talk to you on the phone, I have an expectation of privacy. If a police officer yells at me in a crowded restaurant, there is no expectation of privacy.

ETA: I looked into it. Sure enough, the law is for wiretapping, NOT recordning events in a public place. In fact, there was an on-point case with this a year ago in PA when a guy videotaped a traffic stop. The police ordered him to stop and he refused. He was arrested but the DA dropped the charges. Look into it.

Your opinion is duly noted, but 100% irrelevant to the issues of the thread. The fact that the patrons at the restaurant were OCing is entirely besides the point. They could have been doing ANYTHING that was legal. The issue isn't what legal thing they were doing; the issue is police ignorance and heavy-handedness.

Since the ENTIRE debate of this thread is about police behavior, and since you agree that OC is legal, then it does appear we've reached "end of discussion." The police were in the wrong because they were ignorant of the law. That fact dominates everything that happened after. Since you agree with the premise, that leaves little else to debate.

Bumper

This thread has turned in the direction warned about earlier and will now be closed. We generally don't get into OC discussions here because this always seems to be the outcome. It's too bad, though, because we are both on the same side as gun owners.

You can agree or disagree with this thread closure, but please don't open this argument again....

__________________
Bumper
Administrator
DefensiveCarry.com Forum
Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.