Surveillance works both ways

Those of us who believe society is becoming far too comfortable with cameras and surveillance everywhere we go, are often told "if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you worried about?" This question ignores how even legitimate power can be perverted. That said, it would seem the shoe pinches when on the other foot, and it's the minions of the state under constant observation:

The resisting-arrest conviction last week of Felicia Gibson has left a lot of people wondering. Can a person be charged with resisting arrest while observing a traffic stop from his or her own front porch? ...

Gibson was not the only bystander watching the action on the street. She was the only one holding up a cell-phone video camera. But court testimony never indicated that Hunter told her to stop the camera; he just told her to go inside.

Asked to explain the charge of resisting arrest, Salisbury Police Chief Rorie Collins provided general comments. He was not discussing the specifics of the Gibson case...

"As with other circumstances, it is best advised that an individual merely obey by the officer’s commands.” (emphasis added)

As the editorial notes in its conclusion, if safety were the issue it doesn't explain why Gibson was singled out for arrest. Possession of a camera likely does. As for that last comment, it certainly doesn't strike the tone of "protect and serve," now does it?

A free society puts distinct limits on the authority of its officials. By definition, only in a police state would one be expected to obey every whim of an officer.

Which do you want to live in?