Adam Mueller Faces 21 Years In Jail After Reporting School Police Brutality

[Benny]

Adam "Ademo" Mueller, Journalist And CopBlock.org Founder, Faces 21 Years In Jail After Reporting School Police Brutality

How dare he record a conversation to get the actual truth? Scumbag.

Mueller has been offered a plea deal of a two-year suspended sentence, which he is refusing.

"Here's how I see the offer: it's a stellar deal if I actually thought what I had done was wrong," Mueller wrote in a post on CopBlock.org. "First, I can't go against my principles and sign a deal that says I acknowledge my actions as wrong or illegal. Second, I'm not a hypocrite. How can I advocate refusing plea deals and sign one myself? I don't judge anyone who has taken pleas because each case/charge is different. Third, I am confident I can show a jury, with facts and logic, that I shouldn't be caged for my actions.... Let the circus begin!"

I don't fault him at all for not taking the plea deal, but that takes some serious cajones...21 years is a LONG time.

 

[Mackey]

The writer of that article sure plays fast and loose with facts.

Adam "Ademo" Mueller, a journalist and co-host of radio show Free Talk Live, is facing 21 years in prison for reporting on police brutality toward students at a Manchester, N.H. high school.

He's clearly facing time for the three felony counts of wiretapping, which is admitted in the next paragraph.

 

[Benny]

The writer of that article sure plays fast and loose with facts.


He's clearly facing time for the three felony counts of wiretapping, which is admitted in the next paragraph.

Correct. When the government does it, it's called "lawful interception."

Lock this POS up.

 

[Mackey]

Correct. When the government does it, it's called "lawful interception."

Lock this POS up.

I get you.
I can understanding outlawing bugging someone's private office or home, but if someone in authority is running his mouth at a citizen there should be no law against that. It's BS

 

[rambone]

How can any public servant performing official duties expect privacy from the people he serves?

 

[level.eleven]

We need red light cameras in courts.

 

[Benny]

How can any public servant performing official duties expect privacy from the people he serves?

I can't quite grasp why this is even in question.

Every public servant in the US should be at least allowed to be recorded at all times, no questions asked...I don't understand how it could be any other way.

I also don't understand why every police vehicle allowed to roam the streets shouldn't have a dash-cam in it.

The good ones out there have absolutely NOTHING to worry about. Nothing, zilch, notta.

 

[gunowner930]

The good ones out there have absolutely NOTHING to worry about. Nothing, zilch, notta.

I like that. That's the same crap they use to justify their police state to us.

 

[bingley]

I like that. That's the same crap they use to justify their police state to us.

It sounds like nobody wants to get recorded: neither the civilians nor the police. So I guess we all have skeletons in our closet.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As much as I hate those clowns at CopBlock, I think it should be their right to report, and record if need be, on instances of "concern."
In this case, however, I don't see the officer as doing anything wrong. He stole his sister's purse, obviously someone reported it, school officer goes to get purse, student gets frisky and ends up with his head bounced off a table. Unfortunately that didn't knock any sense in him.

Then again, it doesn't appear that it's the video that has gotten him those charges, but rather recording people during phone conversations.

 

[Denny347]

Looks like he should have been recording the phone conversations in a 1 party state like Indiana. Many states require all parties to consent to the telephone recording. That is where the charges stemmed from. You would think he of all people would know the wiretap law in his state. Maybe he wants to create new case law.

 

[88GT]

As much as I hate those clowns at CopBlock, I think it should be their right to report, and record if need be, on instances of "concern."
In this case, however, I don't see the officer as doing anything wrong. He stole his sister's purse, obviously someone reported it, school officer goes to get purse, student gets frisky and ends up with his head bounced off a table. Unfortunately that didn't knock any sense in him.

Then again, it doesn't appear that it's the video that has gotten him those charges, but rather recording people during phone conversations.

Nope, nothing wrong at all.....in a police state.

 

[88GT]

Looks like he should have been recording the phone conversations in a 1 party state like Indiana. Many states require all parties to consent to the telephone recording. That is where the charges stemmed from. You would think he of all people would know the wiretap law in his state. Maybe he wants to create new case law.

State law doesn't forbid recording if the other person doesn't know about it. The prohibition comes in only when the other person(s) has a reasonable expectation that his actions/words won't be subject to interceptions. The homeowner on the phone with grandma, or the neighbor lady having coffer with her friend on the front porch have a reasonable expectation of non-interception. Though I doubt it's the standard, no public official in the exercise of his duties should ever have that expectation. Based on that, and the letter of the law, no crime was committed.

 

[CarmelHP]

Courts need to make a brightline rule that public officials in the performance of their duties are First Amendment fair game for any type of recording.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope, nothing wrong at all.....in a police state.

Then I'd appreciate you pointing out what you thought was wrong with the officers actions.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Then I'd appreciate you pointing out what you thought was wrong with the officers actions.

Please tell us you are joking.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Please tell us you are joking.

Not at all, tell me what you see in that vid

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not at all, tell me what you see in that vid

I will grant you that the video was not of the best quality but given the circumstances, any scuffle indicates a response which was excessive for the circumstances.

As far as I am concerned the use of police particularly involving situations which do not warrant police involvement accomplishes nothing but training children to be subservient to JBTs. One would have thought a stern admonition to quit pestering his sister would have been sufficient. In case anyone including and especially the school administration and the police failed to notice, sibling nonsense has been going on since the advent of the human race. Now, why is this happening?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I will grant you that the video was not of the best quality but given the circumstances, any scuffle indicates a response which was excessive for the circumstances.

As far as I am concerned the use of police particularly involving situations which do not warrant police involvement accomplishes nothing but training children to be subservient to JBTs. One would have thought a stern admonition to quit pestering his sister would have been sufficient. In case anyone including and especially the school administration and the police failed to notice, sibling nonsense has been going on since the advent of the human race. Now, why is this happening?

They tried to NOT involve police...
From my understanding of the story.
-Brother takes sisters purse, against her wishes
-Somehow school administrators are notified of the taken purse
-School officials, without an officer, tell the kid to give them the purse so they can return it.
-Brother won't give purse to administrators, telling them I'll give it to her myself
-Administrators then go and get the SRO
-SRO arrives, takes purse, and administrators tell the brother he suspended meaning its time to GTFO of their school.
-Officer lifts brother, an an obvious struggle ensues, he is then slammed against a table to get control.

What's the issue? I get the sibling thing, but at the point the brother refuses to give back the purse (when the officer wasn't present), then what happens? Are the school officials simply going to let a student keep the purse and call it a day? That kid could have simply given back the purse and that would have been the end of it; no suspension, no slammed into a table. He decided he wanted to challenge people over a piece of property that he neither owned nor was entitled to posses. That typically doesnt work out well.

 

[Denny347]

State law doesn't forbid recording if the other person doesn't know about it. The prohibition comes in only when the other person(s) has a reasonable expectation that his actions/words won't be subject to interceptions. The homeowner on the phone with grandma, or the neighbor lady having coffer with her friend on the front porch have a reasonable expectation of non-interception. Though I doubt it's the standard, no public official in the exercise of his duties should ever have that expectation. Based on that, and the letter of the law, no crime was committed.

I know Indiana is a one party state...as long as YOU know you are recording...you can record till your heart is content. I don't know the details to the laws in other states...I have a hard enough time remembering ours I will take your word on this.