Link is dead.
FB probably had no choice but to remove it.
http://wiretapping.uslegal.com/state-laws/minnesota/
> In Minnesota, it is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-offi...
> A number of states do bar people from recording private conversations without consent. But as long as the recording is made “openly and not surreptitiously,” said Osterreicher, it’s fair game. According to Osterreicher, “assuming the position of holding up a camera or phone at arm’s length while looking at the viewing screen should be enough to put someone on notice that they are being photographed or recorded.”
This happened in another case, where a person was shot in a store (Wal-Mart perhaps). Police then proceeded to heavily interrogate the partner and try to get them to admit the victim was "unstable", "drunk", "violent" and so on. Because it builds an excusable story so the officer is cleared of charges quicker (they don't have to actually resign and move one town over to another dept., but just get a 10 days paid vacation).
"Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting regulations must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements."
(The actual broadcasting regulation was that Sinn Fein politicians couldn't have their voices heard on TV at all -- interviews, statements etc. had to be dubbed over.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988%E2%80%9394_British_broadc...
She was detained until the scene could be cleared. All those backup officers know when responding is that an officer called in a shooting and that there is a gun in the car. They detain her until they can get all of the information and then she is released so long as they are not pressing any type of charges against her.
They can't take a statement on the street?
We need to make a conscious effort to move away from these sole repositories of humanity's video content. Youtube is still a dominating player even though we have HTML5 video support in all browsers. As mentioned before social media sites are not ideal for this job because of onerous terms of service and arbitrary removals. "What police brutality? I don't see it." Control the content and you control the narrative. Ideally in the future we'll look back and laugh at the fact that we all entrusted our videos to a private company's servers but considering how storage space keeps going down and the "cloud" keeps getting shoved down our throats, I'm not optimistic.
It's not like widespread HTML5 video support marks some significant change in the landscape. We had flash support in all browsers forever; that's how youtube came about in the first place. It wasn't difficult at all to make another website that also served flash videos. It still isn't.
What youtube does that's difficult is agree to host the content. HTML5 does nothing for that.