FLIR Security | 12/19/13 11:54pm
The real question is whether or not the white supremicists have a hot tub within view of the councilmans cameras.
I suspect the precedent regarding pointing cameras at your neighbors left the barn a long time ago. Probably thousands, if not millions of homeowners, businesses and indeed government agencies have cameras busily recording what is happening on their neighbors' property. I don't think it is uncommon for the Police to request video from the adjacent property owners in the course of investigating crimes and accidents, nor is uncommon for the Courts to admit the recordings as evidence. Under those circumstances it seems a bit unlikely that the Restraining Order will remain in force, if it is seriously challanged.
None of this is based upon any formal legal training on my part, just observations of how accepted the intrusion of recorded video in our lives has become.
IPVMU Certified | 12/20/13 01:01am
as of yesterday he still got to keep the camera... he was issued a "stern" warning from the judge regarding the camera facing the towards the front of mr. cobbs house (the supremacist)... they have condemed the property of mr. cobb and it will be torn down in the very near future so that camera won't have much to look at anymore... the other interesting twist in mr. cobbs life is that he took a dna test on a talk show and it revealed that is isn't 100% european as he had expected but had 14% african in his heritage... this is happening in my state so it is on the talk news stations pretty much everyday...
If the camera appears to be limited to the immediate area surrounding the owner's property, and there is signage (as I have) to say "this property is subject to CCTV surveillance" - I don't see an issue. If, on the other hand, you have a Camera trained directly on my property - I would object. I would also probably do some covert testing on the short term effect that a 5 watt laser has on the average imager. I've often wondered if it would cause damage to an imager" Does anyone know?
It looks like the restraining order got thrown out, according to the latest news post on this page.
44% of people who voted in the poll said she should be able to block the camera from pointing at her house. Why is that?
So a camera is so bad that a judge gets involved, but having an armed group walking around with (probably loaded) guns is OK?
I truly do not understand the logics in the U.S.