Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kelteckiller]

In other words, if you were to video-tape a cop beating up a random pedestrian for the heck of it, and were wearing body armor at the time, you would be facing 14 years in prison.

That's complete nonsense.  Body armor is completely legal.  Next question.

Um, no, actually it's not.

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

You don't exactly have to be committing a murder, or even doing anything remotely immoral, to trigger that particular law.

And it is not a sentencing enhancement.  It is a separate statute.  They do not have to be able to convict you of the original felony, to convict you under 650-B.

For example, let's say that you were stopped and searched for some legally-allowable reason, and they found that you were carrying a quantity of "amateur pharmaceuticals," and wearing armor.  Let's further imagine that sometime prior to trial, they corrupt the drug case, and the judge throws it out.  Since the original felonious action (carrying certain drugs) can be proven (pursuant to a lawful search), you can still be charged and convicted under 650-B, even though the original case was thrown out.

A sentencing enhancement just adds a penalty if you are convicted.  For example:

637:11 Penalties. –
    I. Theft constitutes a class A felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services exceeds $1,000, or
       (b) The property stolen is a firearm, or
       (c) The actor is armed with a deadly weapon at the time of the theft, except that if the deadly weapon is a firearm, he shall be sentenced in accordance with RSA 651:2, II-g.
    II. Theft constitutes a class B felony if:
       (a) The value of the property or services is more than $500 but not more than $1000, or
       (b) The actor has been twice before convicted of theft of property or services, as a felony or class A misdemeanor, or
       (c) The theft constitutes a violation of RSA 637:5, II(a) or (b), or
       (d) The property or services stolen are from 3 separate business establishments within a 72-hour period.
    III. Theft constitutes a misdemeanor if the value of the property or services does not exceed $500.

Notice that stealing a firearm is a class A felony, due to the nature of the property that was stolen.  That's a sentencing enhancement.  You have to be convicted of the actual theft, for the enhancement to take effect.  The same is not in any way true of 650-B - you can be convicted on that charge, regardless of whether you were convicted of the original felony.

Joe
[/quote] 

It is the same as if you have a police scanner/radio while committing a felony...there is an enhanced penalty...both of those are legal to use otherwise...Please don't ever be a lawyer...

[NHArticleTen]

And, of course, the whole point here being...that...some people dressed in some costumes with some equipment and some fancy illuminated vehicles(or bicycles...or horses)...

"Believe"...based on some erroneous mob-mentality/tyranny majority...that they have some sort of Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power over the rest of mere mortal humanity...

We can take Joe's example of video-taping these costumed clowns assaulting another human being while wearing body armor(or, for that matter, a metal trash can with arm and head holes...yes that DOES qualify as "body armor" under the RSA)...

Or...

We could use another example where the clowns are carrying their own "throw down" drugs/guns/etc. to conveniently "find" while they come after you because they see you walking down the street with said body armor/trash can on...

After all...they do (supposedly/erroneously) have that Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power...and the backing of millions of looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...in some supposed "democracy/mob-majority"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com)...

What happens when Individual Sovereign Human Beings...being so scared/afraid/suspicious of some people in some costumes...refuse to be a victim of these perpetrators for any reason what-so-ever...

What happens when it gets to the point(and it has already gotten to this point for some...witness certain "detainees") where what you think might only be a "tail-light out" stop...becomes your kidnapping/waterboarding/detention in Syria or Gitmo...

If they want you to "disappear"...you're GOING to DISAPPEAR...no "ifs" "ands" or "buts"...

In Conclusion...

With our current technology it is entirely possible to sufficiently enroll and educate the masses as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

This action has the incredible potential to change this nation(and quite literally, the world) OVERNIGHT...

It's an awesome task...that we've undertaken...to spread the PMNAP everywhere...
And because it "takes something from" all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

GUESS WHO IS GOING TO BE ETERNALLY OPPOSED TO IT...YEP, YOU'RE RIGHT...

So...
Again...

Your task, if you so choose to accept it, is to BECOME a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

AND...

To devote the rest of your existence to it's adoption by each and every other willing Individual Sovereign Human Being...

Those then unwilling to cease and desist from their aggression/force/fraud should be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated so that we(or at least our children/grandchildren) can live in a peaceful and peace-loving world devoid of the strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, hopelessness, etc. that supposed "governments" all across the globe are so fond of creating to control the masses everywhere including here in "Amerika"...one of the slave-nations... in the global-gulag... on the prison-planet... we call "earth"...

Hey...
You're either with us...
Or with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Even the Shrub knows you can't have it both ways...go figure...

Enjoy!

[MaineShark]

OK...It is NOT illegal to JUST wear body armor...say you are petting kittens at a pet store...committing NO crimes and you have body armor on...that is LEGAL...

How do you know that you are committing no crimes?  You don't even know what the laws are.

if you are committing a FELONY and wearing BODY ARMOR it is an E N H A N C E D   P E N A L T Y.  The act of actually wearing body armor is not illegal

No.  It is a separate crime.  If you don't understand the difference between a separate crime and an enhanced penalty, especially after it was just explained in detail, that's just plain sad.  I mean, back when I took criminal law, I don't think a single individual in the class asked to have that clarified - it's really pretty simple.

Joe

[rossby]

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

[NHArticleTen]

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

"get a good lawyer"...

You do understand that it's the lawyers(and their conspiratorial organizations and affiliations) who are "behind" most of the problems we face these days(and throughout much of recorded history as well)...

"Government" "courts"..."government" "lawyers"..."government" "approved" "lawyers"..."government approved" "this" and "that"...

Looters...

Go figure...

Enjoy!

[rossby]

As I said, if you were to videotape a cop beating up a random pedestrian, you would be committing a class B felony (RSA570-A).  If you were wearing body armor while doing so, you would be subject to a separate class B felony charge, time to be to served consecutively with your time from the 570-A violation (RSA650-B).

For a total time of 14 years, if you got the maximum sentence on each charge.

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out. Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

"get a good lawyer"...

You do understand that it's the lawyers(and their conspiratorial organizations and affiliations) who are "behind" most of the problems we face these days(and throughout much of recorded history as well)...

"Government" "courts"..."government" "lawyers"..."government" "approved" "lawyers"..."government approved" "this" and "that"...

Looters...

Go figure...

Enjoy!

I disagree. But so long as we're attributing malice to an entire group of people, I suggest substituting "humans" for "lawyers".

[kelteckiller]

And, of course, the whole point here being...that...some people dressed in some costumes with some equipment and some fancy illuminated vehicles(or bicycles...or horses)...

"Believe"...based on some erroneous mob-mentality/tyranny majority...that they have some sort of Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power over the rest of mere mortal humanity...

We can take Joe's example of video-taping these costumed clowns assaulting another human being while wearing body armor(or, for that matter, a metal trash can with arm and head holes...yes that DOES qualify as "body armor" under the RSA)...

Or...

We could use another example where the clowns are carrying their own "throw down" drugs/guns/etc. to conveniently "find" while they come after you because they see you walking down the street with said body armor/trash can on...

After all...they do (supposedly/erroneously) have that Magical Mystical Murder Wand Of Power...and the backing of millions of looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...in some supposed "democracy/mob-majority"(www.democracyisnotfreedom.com)...

What happens when Individual Sovereign Human Beings...being so scared/afraid/suspicious of some people in some costumes...refuse to be a victim of these perpetrators for any reason what-so-ever...

What happens when it gets to the point(and it has already gotten to this point for some...witness certain "detainees") where what you think might only be a "tail-light out" stop...becomes your kidnapping/waterboarding/detention in Syria or Gitmo...

If they want you to "disappear"...you're GOING to DISAPPEAR...no "ifs" "ands" or "buts"...

In Conclusion...

With our current technology it is entirely possible to sufficiently enroll and educate the masses as students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

This action has the incredible potential to change this nation(and quite literally, the world) OVERNIGHT...

It's an awesome task...that we've undertaken...to spread the PMNAP everywhere...
And because it "takes something from" all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

GUESS WHO IS GOING TO BE ETERNALLY OPPOSED TO IT...YEP, YOU'RE RIGHT...

So...
Again...

Your task, if you so choose to accept it, is to BECOME a student and advocate of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle...

AND...

To devote the rest of your existence to it's adoption by each and every other willing Individual Sovereign Human Being...

Those then unwilling to cease and desist from their aggression/force/fraud should be repelled, destroyed, and eliminated so that we(or at least our children/grandchildren) can live in a peaceful and peace-loving world devoid of the strife, pain, hunger, homelessness, hopelessness, etc. that supposed "governments" all across the globe are so fond of creating to control the masses everywhere including here in "Amerika"...one of the slave-nations... in the global-gulag... on the prison-planet... we call "earth"...

Hey...
You're either with us...
Or with the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries...

Even the Shrub knows you can't have it both ways...go figure...

Enjoy!

That has nothing to do with that point we were talking about...body armor is legal...
You need to stop watching movies and TV...it's really making you paranoid....kidnapping...pfff

[Keyser Soce]

And it's not illegal to wear body armor...it's just an enhanced penalty if using it while committing a felony...so don't copy your DVD's with armor on!

Now that's funny!

[MaineShark]

Get a good lawyer and that won't happen. 650-B doesn't appear to to be aimed at the predicate felony pointed out.

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime. I've read the statute completely, and just don't see what you're relying on. Unless you have some case in NH that says videotaping a cop is a felony (and in that case, that's messed up.)

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe

[rossby]

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.

I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime.

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings. A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public. There's Supreme Court opinion up and down the wall on this. (Now, if the cops start putting up privacy fences around their victims before they beat him senseless....) If a cop approaches you saying, "Hey, put the camera away!"--he's definitely exhibiting that he believes his communications are subject to interception. Nor, really, could a cop claim that unlawfully beating a pedestrian in public is a circumstance that justifies the officer's expection that his oral communications are not subject to interception.

Every point of liability in the class B felony section covers "telecommunications" or "oral communications". The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

You could be charged for attempted suicide for eating a Big Mac. --You can be charged for just about anything.
If a cop didn't want you to videotape him, sure he might get pissed and use this law as a pretense to stop you.

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

[kelteckiller]

650-B isn't aimed at any particular felony.  It doesn't even have to be a State felony, for that matter.  Any felony triggers that statute.

I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

Regardless, 570-A doesn't make videotaping a cop a crime.

I'd suggest reading it more completely.  Unless you rip the microphone off the camera, you can be charged with wiretapping for making a recording.  And yes, individuals have been charged under that statute.  It's one of the things that we're working to change here.  The cops all fight it, because they don't want to be videotaped, for some reason.

Joe

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings. A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public. There's Supreme Court opinion up and down the wall on this. (Now, if the cops start putting up privacy fences around their victims before they beat him senseless....) If a cop approaches you saying, "Hey, put the camera away!"--he's definitely exhibiting that he believes his communications are subject to interception. Nor, really, could a cop claim that unlawfully beating a pedestrian in public is a circumstance that justifies the officer's expection that his oral communications are not subject to interception.

Every point of liability in the class B felony section covers "telecommunications" or "oral communications". The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

You could be charged for attempted suicide for eating a Big Mac. --You can be charged for just about anything.
If a cop didn't want you to videotape him, sure he might get pissed and use this law as a pretense to stop you.

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

Maine shark just uses quips not knowledge to get his point out...He watches V for Vendetta and thinks he's a badass revolutionary...

[MaineShark]

I highly doubt that. It was most likely targeted at violent crimes that can be more easily committed with the protection of body armor. The statute doesn't say that, but that's probably what they were trying to accomplish. I find it exceptionally doubtful that they wanted to punish someone who was wearing body armor at the time they were pulling tags off of pillows. If you were charged in that way, I doubt a judge is going to let that pass the smell test.

What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

And I'd suggest reading more closely. I have read it completely, multiple times. It's not there. Make sure to read the definitions section.

I've read it, including the definitions.  And the case law.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up!

A cop beating up a pedestrian isn't even covered by the statute. A cop, performing his lawful (or unlawful) duties in public is not in a position to claim that he was actually exhibiting an expectation that his communications could not be intercepted. It's in public--there's no expectation of privacy in public.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

The situation of a cop beating up a pedestrian, where the cop happens to be speaking also, just doesn't fit. And that's a good thing.
That's just my take on it. Then again, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. And no one reading this should rely on my opinion.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

But has anyone actually been convicted under this statute?
In a situation similar to the one we've been discussing?
Is there a case on it?

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

Joe

[MaineShark]

Maine shark just uses quips not knowledge to get his point out...He watches V for Vendetta and thinks he's a badass revolutionary...

I was a "badass revolutionary" long before that movie was even a pipedream.

And I do actually know the law, because I actually do research before making comments or accusations.  Unlike yourself, as anyone who clicks the first few pages of this thread can easily determine.

Joe

[rossby]

What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up!

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions. Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of. I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation. Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.

[kelteckiller]

What they were thinking when they passed that law is not relevant.  That is the law.

That's plainly incorrect. A judge will look at the purpose of the law to determine what the law is. Especially where a new or infrequently used law is in question.

The definitions of "oral communication" and "interception" are not the plain, everyday meanings.

Really?!  Wow!  I could never have know that by, you know, reading the statute or anything.  Thanks for clearing that up!

No problem. I do what I can. You did appear to need some guidance on the issue.

I didn't say anything about it being in public.

You said pedestrian. Pedestrians are usually in public. Unless you have secret, underground sidewalks, roads, etc. up there in New Hampshire. To now bring up that you didn't say that it's in "public" is to quibble over a useless and inapplicable distinction over what you actually said. Very politician-like.

Yeah, maybe you shouldn't give opinions on things you are not competent to discuss, huh?

I'm quite able to interpret a statute, and have great experience in doing it, as it is literally my day-job. Perhaps some of you NHer's can thank me for putting a log-jam in your Presidential Primary earlier this year. However, as I said, I am not licensed to practice law in New Hampshire. I cannot comment on the complete legal implications of my interpretation of the statute and no one should rely on what I've said to guide their actions. Indeed, if you would insist on suggesting I should not comment on competence grounds, I would suggest that you should probably follow the same advice.

I'd suggest doing some research.  You know, before putting your foot in your mouth.  This law is in the limelight precisely because it has been used to oppress individuals who videotaped cops behaving improperly.  Not because it theoretically might be, but because it has...

And no, I'm not providing you a list of cases.  You clearly don't bother researching these things before making uneducated commentary, and the research will be good practice.  It's been in the news recently, so it shouldn't even be difficult to research it.

I haven't asked for any of the information you seem to want to deny me.  I am aware of the specific instance you are speaking of. I've only asked a few yes-no questions. But you seem to completely miss the point in my previous post: whether the police use a law as a pretense to oppress someone does not mean the law actually applies. As we all know, police can break the law too. It may well be that someone has been arrested and charged for this. But that doesn't mean, as you've been saying, that this law applies in this situation. Many states have a very similar wiretapping law. And I have not heard of a conviction applying to this situation. That doesn't mean it's not there. It means I haven't heard of it.

But--like usual--rather than address any of the actual issues or questions, you've only avoided answering or discussing anything further, and with the usual and generous helping of negativity and personal insults. I encourage you to rejoin the discussion at any time.

 ...I like this guy