Bitcoin Forum

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/illinois-felony-citizens-record-police-media-silent/

And people still walk around thinking freedom of speech is real... Sure say whatever you want except for this, this, this this and this. Oh and don't mention that.

In France among a few other countries it's illegal to deny the holacaust (in other words, you are not even allowed to think what you want anymore) and doing so can even give a jail sentence.

Happy to see my state had the correct response to cops killing citizens in the US!

I agree with this. A lot of people go around, recording cops and purposely irritating them. It's hard to work under pressure especially when people keep on pushing and pushing you. There are already video recorders and cameras in the cars of many cops so if people have complaints they can always get a judge to allow access to the videos in order to make a claim. People who record cops usually do it because they are pretentious douche bags... just saying.

Wasn't Obama working on something federally to have officers equip cameras to their uniforms?

No one talks about it because it is a blue state AND 0bama's spot.

This link should be shared with #mikebrown #shutitdown crew...

Chicago police are some of the worst there is. We can't go having the inner city portions of Chi-town go up in smoke all because people catch the bastards doing god knows what to who know whom over there on camera. The way police are feeling these days and especially those in Chicago, it would only be a matter of time before the sheer amount of crime there is dealt with in such a way that one situation gets out of hand and goes viral creating ferguson on steroids.

It is not only their police, it is their public officials and government in general. IL (and Chicago) is one of the worst run states (cities) in the country.

@OP - I don't think this law would be able to be enforced as the US supreme court has held that it is a constitutional right for citizens to record their interactions with the police and public officials

Can't this be challenged in the courts?

The police departments as a whole are starting to forget that their main purpose is to SERVE and protect.   :-\

Luckily, at the same time surveillance technology is becoming more advanced and more common.  These laws will eventually be overturned.

Right, because dashcam footage never just magically disappears when it happens to capture abuse now does it? Cops already have laws that they heavily abuse that allows them to arrest anyone interfering. They are deciding the fates of peoples lives, if they can't handle the pressure they shouldn't be cops, or even armed for that matter.

This. If someone who was practicing their freedom was rude it is best to end that freedom for everyone. Wouldn't want to hurt any more police officers feelings or make them uncomfortable. That's the most important thing after all.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2504/3842587850_831c278465.jpg

There are already laws against interfering with the police.  A law against recording authority is a bad law and one-sided.

So if I was to say that you are a pretentious douche bag, would it be equally without a factual basis as the allegations you have made?

LOL, then I should become a cop in america, if i want to kill innocent ppl and stay unharmed. Good.

Freedom of speech is real only if you are not criticizing the authority. Has always been this way since Adam and Eve!

+1 on calling out his lack of rationality.


And pervs and paedophiles are probably drawn to jobs with the Homelust Securewurity Dept.

You may have a point. If I was going to record a cop, I'd probably doing it on my (nonexistent) Smart Phone while pretending to text somebody, but so many people try to attract attention by making it OBVIOUS that they're filming the cop and/or interfering with the cop's duties. If you're going to record a cop, don't be an a-hole about it. We've seen that Grand Juries are often reluctant to indict cops for using deadly force and you can always post it on Youtube and/or send it to your local news station later IF you walk away from the situation with your Smart Phone still in your hand.

But seriously, I hope somebody challenges this law on court. One of these days, somebody who just happened to capture a cop on video while filming themselves going about their business and then posted the whole thing on Youtube could be prosecuted using this law.

I wonder if there are any cops who are pretentious douche bags?  Could that number be zero?  Is there a magic potion they get after getting through the academy that makes these people perfect?
All this law does is guarantee that people recording are going to have to keep the recording secret, which is probably bad for the police.  Knowing that they are being recorded may encourage best behavior, whilst not knowing (until it appears posted anonymously somewhere) may not be as good for them.  It is a bad law.
The law makes it look like they have something to hide.  The good cops may not be so worried about this. 

I can see some security issues, with facial recognition and zero privacy.  There are bad guys that might want to use this information for evil purposes.
My issue is more that it is a one-sided law... why a law that only protects police?  Why not make the same law protect everyone if there is really some privacy concern? 
The folks that want this for evil purposes will still be able to get their recordings, it will just cost more now that it is contraband.

The forgot nothing.. their main purpose is to serve and protect THE BANKS AND GOV, not you.

Well, I may just happen to be recording when I get stopped.  ;)

In Illinois, your car (and camera/phone) just becomes forfeit-able as it is used in the commission of a felony crime and then the car can be sold by the police.  The profit of which sale goes to the police force, whether or not you were guilty of anything when they stopped you, and even if they didn't give you a ticket.  It is "legal" for them to do this after the passage of this law.
It is a bad law.

PROTIP: Don't use a smartphone with a bitcoin wallet on it to record the police in Illinois.

So, if I happen to see a cop in Illinois raping someone:

I can not record them or I may be charged with a crime.
I can not stop them or they may shoot me because they felt threatened.

This is true... which is why power hungry people that get off abusing people want to be cops...

There are those that do it for good but alas many that do it for power.

Astute. The government is forcing us towards anonymous systems, which will be worse for them in the end. It is analogous when they shutdown Napster then a P2P sharing systems sprouted. The government can't win against the hackers.

People can argue politics until they are blue in the face, but it is all irrelevant. Technology is relevant and the individual will become empowered to give the middle finger to the government and the banksters.

Soon we will have private, untraceable drone cameras that record everything anyway.

:)

Au contraire... you're entitled to hold whatever opinion you like... what you can't do is go around proclaiming it in public.

France
The Gayssot Act was passed in France on July 13, 1990.  The Act criminalizes questioning the existence of crimes of humanity as defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which was used at Nuremberg in 1945 to 1946 to convict Nazi leaders.   Robert Faurisson, an infamous Holocaust denier, challenged the Act but the Human Rights Commission upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.   

Law No. 90-615 to repress acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia (1990)
Art 9. - As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one years imprisonment or a fine.

Art 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favorable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years imprisonment or a fine.

As for the bill referenced in the OP...

It quite clearly states that it covers recording PRIVATE CONVERSATION between two or more parties where A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY exists.  To whit, simply recording the police going about their day to day business IN PUBLIC (where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy) would not be illegal.  Recording the private conversation between two offices, an officer and a suspect/member of the public would be (potentially).

hmm... So a corrupt cop asking for a bribe in his office is off limits?

That's correct.

You obviously aren't an expert in law. Try reading the definition of "private conversation".

"(d)Private conversation

For the purposes of this Article,
"private  conversation" means any oral communication between
2 or more persons, whether in person or transmitted between the
parties by wire or other means, when one or more of the parties
intended the communication to be of a private nature under
circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

In short, all the cop has to say is he intended the conversation to be private, and that's it. The recording is illegal regardless of how actually public it is.

I also found this section interesting

"(Source: P.A. 91-357, eff. 7-29-99; 91-657, eff. 1-1-00.)
(720 ILCS 5/14-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 14-5)
Sec. 14-5. Evidence inadmissible.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this Article is not admissible
in any civil or criminal trial, or any administrative or legislative inquiry
or proceeding, nor in any grand jury proceedings; provided, however,
that so much of the contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted,
overheard or recorded conversation as is clearly relevant, as
determined as a matter of law by the court in chambers, to the proof
of such allegation may be admitted into evidence in any criminal trial
or grand jury proceeding brought against any person charged with
violating any provision of this Article. Nothing in this Section bars
admission of evidence if all parties to the private conversation or
private electronic communication consent to admission of the evidence."

This section basically states that if the officer DOES decide the conversation as private, instantly any evidence collected in this manner is inadmissible in court. In the past in Illinois they abused laws intended to prevent wiretapping. The supreme court struck this practice down, so now they have modified the language of the bill to explicitly say what they were just interpreting and abusing before. In the past organizations dedicated to monitoring police will often simply disable audio on their devices. You can not catch a cop lying or contradicting themselves this way with words, but you can however still legally document police brutality for example IF THE AUDIO IS DISABLED.

BUT WAIT - It gets weird.

Now in California, this happened?

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/11/oakland-protester-unmasked-as-undercover

"An undercover law enforcement officer attempted to infiltrate an anti-police brutality protest in Oakland, California, last night. But once his cover was blown, he drew his gun. A photographer snapped pictures of him pointing it directly at the camera."

Art imitates life imitates art.

http://ww4.hdnux.com/photos/33/53/54/7256895/19/920x1240.jpg

I get that they are defending themselves against the guy on the ground (who allegedly hit one of the officers).
But why the gun pointed at the camera?

A Canon is not a cannon.

I did read, and indeed cited, parts of the definition of 'private conversation'... you sir seem to fail at English comprehension.  The cop could claim he 'intended the conversation' to be private as much as he likes, if it's not under 'circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation' he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

e.g. You record a cop screaming at a fleeing person at the top of his voice - no problem
e.g. You record the same cop's DISCUSSION once he's arrested/arresting the same person and speaking directly to them, you're potentially in trouble.

NB it would, ultimately, be up to a court to decide whether or not the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The second section does, indeed, state that IF (and only if) the conversation recorded was deemed to be private and recorded illegally (as above, a conversation isn't automatically private just because one or the other party stated that they intended it to be) any such recording would be inadmissible (fruit of the poison tree) however, as I implied, and you stated outright, recording actions (as opposed to conversation/discussion) in public would bypass this entirely (and if you were close enough to record you could actually testify as to what, if anything, you overheard).

Wonder if anyone will find a loophole or something... Since it's for Citizens, maybe someone makes an organization or something not defined as a "Citizen" to do this? I'm not that legal savvy, but just thinking out loud. This stuff sucks, if this spreads... smh...

 Actually you  didn't "cite" parts of the "private conversation" definition, you INTERPRETED IT. If you know anything about law you would know words ONLY MEAN what they say they mean in the definition. If they defined "private conversation"  as talking to a stadium full of people, talking to a stadium full of people would now be "private". Your standard understanding of the definitions of the words are MEANINGLESS UNLESS DEFINED, and they are defined, exactly how I quoted, not how you INTERPRETED it.

The law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

All a cop has to do is SAY HE INTENDED for the conversation to be private, now law enforcement gets to pick and choose which evidence is admissible. The part that says "under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation." is COMPLETELY OPEN TO INTERPRETATION by law enforcement and prosecutors. Any time there is a law regarding police that states something should have to be "reasonable" it is ABUSED HEAVILY, because for something to be "reasonable" you only have to again create another idea in your head to fabricate a REASON for your expectation of privacy.

Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere.

As you say, the law clearly states

"when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation."

The two parts required for something to be deemed private are;

'one or more of the parties intending it to be so' AND 'it taking place in circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation'.

The theoretical cop can not reply on the first part without also satisfying the second part of the same clause, as per my earlier examples.

You say "Being out in public WOULD NOT bypass this law at all, and I know this for a fact. You know how I know this? Because they were enforcing a previous version of this law intended to stop illegal wiretapping, against people filming IN PUBLIC in order to charge them with felonies. The supreme court struck this practice down, now in order to regain this ability, they are modifying the law to explicitly give them the power to do so. You have far too much blind faith and trust in law enforcement who have no desire or obligation to help you, but only a mandate to CONSUME you and all that you own, because at the end of the day all they are, are armed revenue collection agents for their localities going into massive debt. Your well being doesn't factor into it anywhere."

So they (the police?) 'enforced' the previous law (that was subsequently struck down) - and?  The police can arrest you (and try and make a case) on suspicion of pretty much anything... which is where you get your day in court, if it even goes that far, to make your case that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and you therefore didn't break the law.  IF, and only if, the court interprets the 'reasonable expectation' element as absurdly as you obviously expect them to then I'll join you in righteous indignation over the implementation/outcome - until then I'll keep faith that a court, jury (and yes, possibly even the police) would 'do the right thing' (vis a vis determining 'reasonableness').

Side note: actually, I've had several good experiences with helpful police officers (and a couple of not so good experiences) - so am far from trusting them 'blindly' - although I do trust them, overall, to perform their jobs to the best of their abilities, etc - that may have something to do with them not being armed or revenue collection agents for the locality here (ok, so about 10% of our police are now armed - but that's irrelevant.)

You are right, I only live in this state. What would I know?

I am not sure about the part about evidence of "illegal" recording being inadmissible in court however the 7th court of appeals has declared IL's previous law banning the filming of police officers unconstitutional and in 2012 the supreme court declined to here an appeal by the state of IL.

I don't think anything in the law has changed so that it would not be constitutional.

Courts are often completely insane.
You know they convicted Bernard von NotHaus of Counterfeiting because his pure silver medallions might be mistaken for the Nickle-Copper stuff the US Government makes?  So they confiscated millions of dollars of silver even though THEY LOOK NOTHING ALIKE.

Getting your day in court is not always what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is you against law enforcement and only a jury of your "peers" standing between you and a career ending felony.

BvN used the "$" symbol and even put the word "DOLLAR" on his coins.

You can't do that unless Congress says you may, via delegated authority.

The judge was pretty fair and kept him out of prison, much to the chagrin of the overreaching prosecutor thugs.

This Illinois recording law is being overblown with FUD.  It doesn't make it illegal to record where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.  If it did, the courts would shred it in no time.

Neither of the issues you raised were of any significance in the trial, just in the press release issued afterward by the FBI to rewrite the history.  They would have been easily refuted in the court.  The press is more fickle.

For your edification:
There was never a "$" on any US coin before BvN (though on many Mexican Peso coins).  The word "Dollar" is also not unique to US coins and is on very many (Including Disney Dollars), coupons, coins, "Dollar Stores".  These words and symbols are not the purview of congress, and to think that they ought control such minutia would be pretty insane anyway.

The Sacagawea dollar was the first with a "$" and this was well after the BvN trial.  It also was disingenuously called the Sacagawea golden dollar, though not having ANY gold in it and made smaller to give the impression that it had more valuable metals.
So who are the counterfeiters really?  Such brazen disregard for the people of the USA by the US Mint was answered by this coin becoming the ridicule of the numismatic community and practically driven from circulation.

The US Mint copies BvN designs more than once, and then he has to change or be charged with counterfeiting.  The minting community is not that large, and most in it knows the story pretty well.  Where BvN lead, the US Mint followed.

without the cme^tm, Illinois would be in worst shape than Detroit at its worst. What saddening is that for what ever hubris the dear leaders are following there, they are ready to ditch the American dream... so sad. A2 is a premise of A1. Why can't I record the police? Isn't it the interest of all among the more perfect union to have the more perfect police that can justify it's action on tape, and be proud of themselves, and not hiding failures ala greenpeace? Anyway in the Iron Ring of Manhattan such deviant behaviors are always recorded... who is afraid of whom? you wanna play, welcome to the XXI century, bitches:).

It is unenforceable in any case. 
Every time they walk into a 7-11 for free coffee or go get some donuts, they will be on surveillance camera.

what those monkeys don't know is that they already are, it's just last phases of the corrupts that have to be pathed. Have you ever played an AI in a real VG?

Agreed. I watched NORFED grow and get prosecuted and raided as it happened. NORFED did NOT violate similitude laws, and furthermore there is no law against using the $ symbol, it is not exclusive to the US or a US invention by any means. BVNH was RAILROADED, and the $7 million dollars in precious metals he had backing up their warehouse receipts was stolen by the government, not NORFED. From what I understand the metals have to now be released back to the customers. I wonder what this means for all certificate holders and individuals that had their orders seized...

When I saw this picture, my first thought was "Is he a thug wanna-be, or poorly trained?"

What cop holds a gun like that?

When the Illinois Supreme Court invalidated the previous state law like this, they held that a police officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in  public encounters with citizens. They did not define or elaborate further, but that language is now common law in IL, and because the new law uses the same language the previous ruling used, this new law cannot invalidate that.

I have no doubt the police will attempt to abuse or wrongly interpret the ambiguity the court left in its ruling to escape oversight, but I have hope that it will be easy to get another decision to expound upon the first ruling when they do on the basis that the intent of the ruling seems plain to me.

This is not how law works. When a state passes a new law contrary to the supreme courts decision it has to be challenged in court, then appealed, and brought before the supreme court AGAIN before it is actually not enforced as law any longer. They did the SAME THING for the gun ban within the City of Chicago. It was struck down but it is still law because no one has been arrested and brought it to appeal yet to challenge it.

So REGARDLESS of how it may end up years and years from now on appeal at the supreme court, it is STILL LAW TODAY, and police still enforce it. What the supreme court said doesn't mean shit if the state is still enforcing the law as they wish with new language specifically defining private as whatever police "intend" private to be, not if an individual is in public or not. So it may very well be against the supreme court dictate, but does it matter? They will still eat up years of your life by arresting you and making you fight costly court battles. In effect it doesn't matter because it is an avenue to harass those who try to hold them accountable, and also allows police to pick and choose which video evidence is admissible in court. Even if you do by some miracle happen to win in court years later and in massive legal debt, who pays the settlement? You do, with your own tax dollars.

Actually, what I described is exactly how the law works, however there is a factual error in my post. The court did not define what "public encounters" are. The previous law the court struck down banned the recording of police working in public, and the court wrote that the state could not ban the the recording of police "where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy." The language in the new bill now uses this exact same language as the IL Supreme Court ruling, which is why legislators are assuming it's constitutional. The new law isn't contrary to the previous decision, but it's still unconstitutional. The court opened the door for something like this when they wrote an ambiguous decision. Because the court was ambiguous, further litigation will be required to define what "public encounters" are.

Like I said, it may be unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter. It is still practiced as law in Illinois, and it is still an effective way to harass people trying to document police misconduct, and an easy way to get inconvenient evidence thrown out of court.

I actually agree with that.  Regardless of the constitutionality of the law, the headline is what many people will see and will be intimidated by.  In practice, the police will be able to harass those who are recording and even if the law at some point determines they were wrong to do so, the video still gets messed with, the stigma is still applied and the discouragement factor is still there.

The law takes years to get sorted out even in cases where there are clear violations...if anything, this is just buying time and a little bit of credibility for those who don't deserve it.

Yeah, I agree with both of you. My original reply was just nit-picky in that I was distinguishing that the new law wasn't written in violation of the IL Supreme Court's earlier ruling. The legislator's actually think they wrote a constitutional law. I disagree, and I hope the court will too when this inevitably gets challenged when the police do what police do: violate rights.

If it is unconstitutional then the law will eventually get overturned and unconstitutional laws are not very effective of achieving this goal as their effect is very temporary. Also excluding evidence that is obtained illegally is probably also unconstitutional and is another reason why the law will probably be overturned

It seems to be Sequentially temporary...  so maybe Illinois just gets used to it?

The silver lining is that unlike many other felonies, police are not yet allowed to use deadly force against a cameraperson just because they notice they are on camera. 
http://www.sa-macon-il.us/illinois-law-on-the-use-of-deadly-force-.html

Instead filming law enforcement there can legally merely ruin your life instead of end it. 

I understand there's still a chance the governor vetos the bill. He's a lame duck, so he doesn't have anything to lose by vetoing it on principle. The problem is the law was passed as part of another law, so it's not being passed on its merits, and it won't be vetoed without consequence to the bill it was attached to.

Actually, best case scenario would be a line item veto, which would force the legislators to go on the record as to why they're such police-state apologists when they try to defend it or override the veto, and give the public a chance to flood their offices with angry calls.

Is it a good thing this didn't happen in Illinois?

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-beat-man-7-month-pregnant-wife-deleted-video-survived-cloud/

icloud apparently saved the video before the officer deleted it from the device so the "shooter" managed to retrieve it.

Yep, inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't admissible in the court of public opinion. Live casting services are your best protection against abusive thieving cops trying to destroy your property to hide their crimes.

I was asking the question because if this was in Illinois, he could be charged with a felony?  The police could then go to his home and take him into custody.  What happens after that, who could say?

Yes they could. Obviously you should release said video anonymously.

First, change your Illinois and U.S. citizenship and residency to domicile. Do it by Notice recorded with your county recorder, and by 3 weeks ad in your local newspaper. Attach notes of the change to all your paperwork that has you listed as citizen or resident.

Get a buddy of yours to do the same. Should be a different State.

Then, write up an agreement or contract between you and your buddy that you require each other to photograph local governmental officials every time you have the opportunity.

If you are called to account by local authorities, use Karl Lentz's methods to sue them (their bond) for wrongful activity on your property (your camera and your body are your property) while carrying out duties outlined in a contract. Start studying so that you know how to sue http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html.

Consider the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, Clause 1:Translation for our purposes:
Karl thinks his methods are a fun way to make money off government.

If you are really into the idea of straightening government and the banks out, check this: http://www.abodia.com/ucc/ . Karl doesn't waste his time on this, but it might be worthwhile for you until a time comes that you have the guts and know how to stand up and be a tough guy/gal, man/woman in court the way Karl does.

The judges (technically, magistrates) and U.S. marshals love him.

:)

They had already taken him and had him fill out a witness report and had all his information.  No matter if it was anonymous he would be taken.

You could still potentially sue in federal court (or potential appeal any ruling that such evidence is not admissible in state court to a federal appeals court) to get this part of the law overturned (as similar IL laws have been overturned by the supreme court previously)

The police can (and will) charge you with anything. I would like to think that the DA has better sense than to try to pursue felony wire tapping charges against a guy who recorded a cop beating his pregnant wife to death. The optimist in me wants to believe that would bring a nightmare of public outrage.

http://www.mocovox.com/index.php/columns/opinion/5639-

Long live the us.

I hope you export even more freedom and democracy is this century

they dont want the public to see them breaking the law and giving the police a bad name

There has been a nightmare of pubic outrage lasting for decades in the US, yet bloody tyranny grows ever stronger.

A nightmare of public outrage for decades? This is news to me!  ???

Sometimes people just die in jail and never make it to a trial.  Some are unexplained, others are "suicides" or "natural causes".  I hear it is not a fun place and can be depressing or stressful.

Yeah, I also get annoyed when douch bags try to interrupt my important work of stealing and gang violence.  It's hard for me to appropriate your possesions, break up your family, and destroy economic infrastructure when you are taking local measurements of the aether nearby me.  Why don't you just talk to my boss?  He will set you straight ;)

The thing is that recording the police doing their work does not impede their work. The police need to follow the law just like everyone else does and recording them is one way to prove that they have or have not broken the law. The police does not need to do anything different regardless of if they are being recorded

They claim it does, and more often than not, they get away without any real punishment for violating the civil rights of their recorders.

On a NPV level it increases the accountability of the police. Even if they are only held accountable a small percentage of the time, they will likely almost never be held accountable when there is no recording at all

The proper response to being murdered by a government agent is not to hold up a camera which will then be destroyed by your murderer, or if not, won't guarantee life imprisonment or death for your murderer.

Being illegal is not going to stop the recording.  It is only going to make it covert, and the publication anonymous.

That's besides my point, but even if every single victim were live-streaming (and recording to backup servers) their own murder by government, it still wouldn't result in any real punishment most of the time.

As we are light-years past the level of tyrannical triggers for the US Revolutionary War, I question whether even open democide (US government-run death camps, ovens, mass graves, etc) in the US would cause innocents to rise up and put an end to this shit.

I really don't like that it is a felony, although there are some annoying people who record police instead of just cooperating with them. It does keep the police in check though when there are cameras on them.

It's writ large that cameras do not keep the police in check. Not even the cameras that police WANT. RIP Bryce Dion (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/cops-crew-member-bryce-dion-killed-omaha-police-shootout-n190301), et al.

It is already against the law to interfere with the police.  This is additional and egregiously unnecessary expansion of power for intimidation's sake.

Recording the police and cooperating with them can be done hand in hand, although there are only a very limited number of instances when you are required to follow the instructions of the police, mainly when you are suspected of a crime (based on probable cause).

To record the police is an attempt to force them to be held accountable to follow the law

Yeah, man - ever since the Internet. All sorts of people clacking away on their keyboards, looking at the worrying amount of police brutality and mis-re-appropriation going on - and they're sick of it, so they vent and relieve the stress so when they finally do encounter a police officer, they can exchange polite howdie-dos and mosey on to their destination (outside the weirdos filming shouting "AM I BEING DETAINED?!" at an officer who pulled him over for going 120mph on a dirt road). Every day at work, we make fun of whoever was pulled over that day by those blood-sucking cock-fuckers... and if "dey shoot mah dogs, dey gon' haffa go through me, 'cause dey like my sons."