If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Yes, this. It also helps me stay calmer when an idiot is behind me because I want to look good if the video ever is needed for evidence.Another reason to get a quality dash cam and drive safe and responsibly.
Is a dashcam, not concealed, with audio enabled surreptitious recording for the purposes of Mass wiretapping law?
Tell them it's being audio and video recorded. doneIs a dashcam, not concealed, with audio enabled surreptitious recording for the purposes of Mass wiretapping law?
Is a dashcam, not concealed, with audio enabled surreptitious recording for the purposes of Mass wiretapping law?
Dont you just have to verbally warn the other party that you are recording audio and video as soon as they approach? Then it's not considered a secret recording and therefore not covered under wiretap.
Tell them it's being audio and video recorded. done
Do you have to tell a cop you’re using a dash cam?
Medford Police Detective Stephen Lebert was warned he was being filmed, but he didn’t need to be.
Mike captured the exchange on his dash camera, and told Lebert he was being recorded. Lebert said he would seize the camera for evidence.
But Lebert can’t do that. And Mike didn’t even have to tell him he was filming.
In Massachusetts, it is illegal to secretly record someone without their prior consent, but there is precedent for recording police officers, according to Sarah Wunsch, Deputy Legal Director of the Massachusetts ACLU.
In Glik v. City of Boston, Simon Glik recorded an arrest that he thought used an excessive amount of force in Boston Common. Authorities claimed Glik violated the state’s wiretapping law—the one that prohibits secret audio recordings. But Glik’s recordings weren’t secret: He did not intentionally hide his recording device. The court ruled that there is a First Amendment right to record police carrying out their duties in public.
Snip -------------
“If the recording device was in plain sight, he would not have been guilty of violating the statute,” she said. “A dash cam is obvious enough to the police. It doesn’t matter if the officer doesn’t notice it: It’s in plain sight, it’s not hidden, it’s not secretly recording. The First Amendment protects this activity.”
The thing is, on a single-lane road or a multi-lane road with heavy traffic, I have no way of deescalating. I consider a brake-check in such situations to be a deescalation of sorts because I'm trying to resolve the situation before a collision occurs. In those situations, my only other choice is to accept the fact that someone is dangerously close to me and might cause a crash.So you take specific action designed to deliver a "message" in a manner most likely not to be noticed quickly, thereby increasing the risk of a collision, and certainly increasing the stress level of someone who apparently already has issues.
Sounds a lot like escalating the situation. Certainly isn't deescalating. I think its a given that in a road rage (and I hate calling it "road rage" because it's really just rage) incident both participants are going to say the other guy started it. What's wrong with just going about your business and ignoring the other guy.
Carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility, part of it is being willing to back off when a situation is about who is "right". I have yet to hear or see a road rage incident that didn't start with someone reacting to something. All it takes is to say (inside voice) "it's not worth it", and back off. Go ahead and show me just one incident where two people just pulled over and started beating the shit out of each other without some prior exchange.
I have audit/video recording warnings posted on the side windows.Is a dashcam, not concealed, with audio enabled surreptitious recording for the purposes of Mass wiretapping law?
I consider a brake-check in such situations to be a deescalation of sorts because I'm trying to resolve the situation before a collision occurs. In those situations, my only other choice is to accept the fact that someone is dangerously close to me and might cause a crash.
The thing is, on a single-lane road or a multi-lane road with heavy traffic, I have no way of deescalating. I consider a brake-check in such situations to be a deescalation of sorts because I'm trying to resolve the situation before a collision occurs. In those situations, my only other choice is to accept the fact that someone is dangerously close to me and might cause a crash.
Is a dashcam, not concealed, with audio enabled surreptitious recording for the purposes of Mass wiretapping law?
That really is a remarkable example of self-justification for bad behavior.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no saint. I have brake-checked someone before. But I realize that it increases the chances of an accident and it escalates the situations n. When I've done that, it was simply my arrogance and rage doing the thinking.
If you want to de-escalate the situation, turn on your signal and pull over to let them pass, or pull into the first store, or take the first turn you can. Let the guy go -- that is de-escalating the situation.
Brake-checking someone is simply going to anger them even more. You are brake checking them because you want to change the way they are driving. But that isn't your job and brake-checking how they drive.
Just let it go. Don't take the bait.
In 9 out of 10 of these confrontations, both drivers behaved badly. One guy drove slowly in the left lane. The other guy tailgated. So number one brake checks him. Then number two does a dangerous pass, gets in front of number one, and brake checks him hard. And before long, they have an accident and one of them comes out swinging.
It's always a Subaru these days. Such a shame that good cars are getting ruined by vaping hipster douches.
The thing is, on a single-lane road or a multi-lane road with heavy traffic, I have no way of deescalating. I consider a brake-check in such situations to be a deescalation of sorts because I'm trying to resolve the situation before a collision occurs. In those situations, my only other choice is to accept the fact that someone is dangerously close to me and might cause a crash...
According to this ACLU lawyer, there is no duty to inform if the recording device (dash cam), is 'obvious'.
http://www.boston.com/news/local-new...ing-a-dash-cam
Problem is, she's assuming that "A dash cam is obvious enough to the police. It doesn’t matter if the officer doesn’t notice it:
It’s in plain sight, it’s not hidden, it’s not secretly recording".
One can buy a dash cam like this...
Is that particular style/model hidden or not obvious?
I'm not sure how much weight I'd give to her "It doesn’t matter if the officer doesn’t notice it" defense... then again IANAL.
Example: My dash cam is not obvious at all. I wouldn't say that it's "hidden", but it's not exactly in plain sight either. It's barely visible from
the outside during the day and near impossible to see during the night. About the only way one would know that its there would be if they
were sitting in the drivers seat.
Why inform them when you have no legal obligation to do so?
My way of thinking is that the less they know, the more they're likely to open their pie holes and say things they wouldn't normally say
(or behave in a certain way), if they if they knew no recording was taking place.
Why place them on notice when you can burn their ass with their own actions and words?
Upload that shit on YouTube and let them suffer the shit storm to follow.
The thing is, on a single-lane road or a multi-lane road with heavy traffic, I have no way of deescalating. I consider a brake-check in such situations to be a deescalation of sorts because I'm trying to resolve the situation before a collision occurs. In those situations, my only other choice is to accept the fact that someone is dangerously close to me and might cause a crash.
I have audit/video recording warnings posted on the side windows.
There are times when you can't get out of the way - that's my point. I like the flashers idea.
Ok, I'll just sit there pretending like everything is fine and ignoring the dangerous tailgater. Sounds like a great plan.And brake checking doesn't diffuse anything. It is a good way to cause an accident. JFC.
Some of you driving "saints" must be the *******s going 35 straight through the 45, 40, & 30 mph zones and causing all of this road rage.
Honestly, read the ****ing signs on the road and take a defensive driving course.
Then shut the front door with the holier than thou attitude, it's making this thread reek of formaldehyde and BenGay.
I remember one time Cpher (rip) told me that of you had a child in he car it would be different because you couldn't retreat. Basically he told me that you would be less likely to be charge for prematurely pulling a gun out if you had a child in the car.
Any court cases like this.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Cpher passed away? I didn't see anything about it on here. Last I had heard he was getting divorced and looking for help to move things.
May he rest in peace.
Ok, I'll just sit there pretending like everything is fine and ignoring the dangerous tailgater. Sounds like a great plan.
On an open road I've tried accelerating away from them - that works sometimes. But yeah, what bigblue said - you saints of the road are probably the annoying lane hogs who do exactly 65 because you don't think anyone should go faster than you.
Some of you driving "saints" must be the *******s going 35 straight through the 45, 40, & 30 mph zones and causing all of this road rage. Honestly, read the ****ing signs on the road and take a defensive driving course. Then shut the front door with the holier than thou attitude, it's making this thread reek of formaldehyde and BenGay.
There are times when you can't get out of the way - that's my point. I like the flashers idea.
Ok, I'll just sit there pretending like everything is fine and ignoring the dangerous tailgater. Sounds like a great plan. On an open road I've tried accelerating away from them - that works sometimes. But yeah, what bigblue said - you saints of the road are probably the annoying lane hogs who do exactly 65 because you don't think anyone should go faster than you.