Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Law Enforcement is not entertainment

My stance on this one is pretty clear, putting film crews for entertainment in cop cars is a terrible idea. If you recall the TV show "Speeders" where you follow traffic cops mostly in Illinois and California (go figure) while they extort thousands of dollars from regular citizens just driving around. Whatever your take on speeding is, I respect your views. If you think it's dangerous, I agree it can be. If you think it's not dangerous, I also agree it also can be. One thing I can try to unite everyone on, is if it's dangerous, why do all the cops on the speeders TV show speed all the time... and if it's not dangerous, why are you paying fines in excess of $100 per incident? That TV show helped me to understand that the rule of law has no meaning, because those who enforce the laws don't believe in them and are never held accountable for breaking them, even things as trivial as speed laws.

That brings us to Naperville Illinois, where A&E are doing a TV series called "Female Forces" a TV show not only to exploit the citizens through law enforcement for entertainment, but also to devalue female police officers. They are the subject of a lawsuit from Matt Coan for violating the civil rights of a physically ill man who was nauseous, and being issued a ticket for driving on a suspended license that was suspended for not paying a previous ticket. This was not a bad man, just a victim of the system that demands your money to pay homage to any officer that stops you, through the court that is.

Coan, a construction contractor, says he was pulled over for driving with a suspended license on April 4, 2008, plaintiff. As defendant Officer Tracy Nance took his license, the TV crew pulled up and began shooting.
Coan claims that Officer Nance stalled, holding him longer than necessary so that defendant Officer Julie Lardino could arrive with another film crew. He says an unknown individual repeatedly asked him to sign a consent form permitting his name, image, voice and likeness to be used on the program. Coan says he refused.
Nonetheless, Coan says, he was prominently featured in the televised episode, and was shown vomiting out his truck door as police arrive.
Nance is heard asking, "Why you throwing up like that, dude?" before asking for Coan's license and insurance. She asked whether he "forgot to pay some tickets, because that is what it looks like you're suspended for."
After Lardino arrived, the two officers mocked and demeaned him, Coan claims.

Now as we've seen in Illinois recently, filming someone without their consent is a FELONY CHARGE... unless you are doing it while affiliated with a police officer, then once again, this law has no meaning.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Daley Actively Decieves to Gain Support

After the Supreme court ruling yesterday Daley started his soapboxing with the normal humor that you'd expect from a deviously intelligent man that hides behind the persona of a complete nimrod. His antics are supposed to be funny, and distract you from the real issues. Here's an example:

Daley said yesterday, "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns", however it was the supreme law of the land that told him that we ARE a nation of laws, and the law said you can't deny people guns! He implies, with skills that could only be obtained as a lawyer, that laws and guns can't be the same thing. Well in this case, they are one in the same, it is LAW that we are a nation of people with GUNS.

Control Freaks in politics and the cycle of "law"

People are often comforted when they elect an official who claims to have all the answers, and it's even better if the people don't have to do anything to receive these answers. This is where the leaders' narcissistic traits start to backfire. The elected leader now will claim it is some inanimate object that causes all the problems, and that you have to give it up. Now you are dependent on a group of people, normally a policing unit for your needs in solving the problem. In the case of murder, while being murdered you are supposed to try to run, and phone police then be in a location where they can find you to help. Some things are just easier to do yourself, if Daley banned soap, I wouldn't want to call the soap police so they could wash my ass.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Illinois rights +1, still 299 behind everyone else.

In a 5-4 supreme court victory in McDonald vs. City of Chicago which stated an outright ban on handguns was unconstitutional, we go now to explore some of the words in the ruling:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

Remember the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

To keep means to have, or own. To bear means to have ON you. While this supreme court ruling may tell people in the city of Chicago they are allowed to "Own" firearms, the state of Illinois is still the most restrictive state in the United States of America when it comes to "carrying" firearms. As a result, this ruling is likely to have little effect on crime rates in Chicago, and citizens here will continue to be the victims on the street, but perhaps, no longer in their own homes.

Many newspapers are heralding this ruling as a victory for the right to "bear" arms. One example is the headline on Politics Daily, which reads: Supreme Court Extends Right to Bear Arms Nationwide. As I have stated, this ruling does not undo Illinois' "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" law which states clearly, that to "bear arms" is a class 1 Felony. Until the right to bear arms is addressed, please hold your celebrating.

Illinois State Police Agenda:

According to the Illinois State Police's own PR department, the agenda of the police in this state isn't to protect you, it's not to protect others.  It's to be so numerous while hiding behind seat belt laws, that they'll catch everyone who makes one mistake, so that they can RUIN YOUR LIFE as they remind you that "years of hard work can be wiped away with just one bad decision."   This along with their, "If you're driving at night, you're in our sights" campaign should make everyone quite comfortable driving around this state, knowing their goal is simply to "find" something wrong, so they can, as the second video illustrates, scar you for life!   Nice job ISP, bringing us one step closer to a revolution.

Friday, June 25, 2010

Chicago Cop thinks supervision is unfair

A drunk Officer John Killackey pulled his gun on a cabbie over a fare dispute:

Killackey, the son of a former police commander, told cabbie Clermont during the incident last year: “I don’t owe you - - - -” when Clermont demanded an $8 payment for the six-minute ride from Crescendo nightclub to his home at Damen and Armitage, evidence showed.
What happened next is really the tell tale sign of a lunatic:

He then pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at Clermont, telling him: "Either I don't owe you - - - - or you get out of the car and see what happens," Clermont testified.
The sentence for this officer pulling a gun on a cabbie, and threatening him with armed aggression?  18 months of supervision and 60 hours of community service.

Compare this to a story I am very familiar with where a person had an unloaded, fully cased Taurus 9mm under the back seat of their SUV while on her way to a gun range to find out why they couldn't disassemble the handgun. The sentence for this terrible, awful, non-threatening, victimless crime?  $994 in fees and fines, a $20,000 lawyer bill, lost their job, 150 hours of community service, mandatory drug & alcohol, and anger management classes, and 12 months supervision.

Meanwhile, this cop that started violence against another person, AND stole from them in the form of using a service they didn't pay for:

But when their commanding officer, Sgt. Robert Peabody, arrived at the scene, he handed Killackey back his gun and badge and let him go, denying Clermont the chance to file a complaint.
Killackey's police powers were suspended and he was put on desk duty after he was charged.

That asshole still has a job that he's completely unfit for!   Welcome to the new world my friends, we're all fucked.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

The Power of One armed Citizen

One armed citizen is more often than not, the difference between attempted murder, and a tragedy.   On Father's day, in East St. Louis Illinois Ashley Oliver was gunned down by her boyfriend while she ran from car across several lanes of traffic, and banged on car windows pleading for help.   She already had been shot, and was bleeding as she begged drivers to help.   There was not a single armed citizen on the road that day due to bad Illinois laws.   The only man with a gun, was Ashley Oliver's killer, Tommie Hill.   Tommie wasn't worried about the Illinois felony level improper transportation of a firearm laws known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon" nor was he concerned with "Aggravated Discharge of a Weapon" and he also wasn't concerned with the law and potential death sentence from  "Murder."  All of these high penalty laws, and Tommie Hill still caught up with his prey, and shot Ashley Oliver in the head in front of onlookers, and Oliver's 7 year old daughter.

In light of the strict punishments, had I been there, I too would have been an unarmed citizen.  If I intervened unarmed, I would have been a victim as well.   This was one of thousands of examples where seconds counted the difference between life and death, and help was only minutes away, and all it would have taken was one armed citizen.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Further evidence of gun-control working in Chicago

This weekend was a fairly quiet one in Chicago.  Only 52 defenseless citizens 8 confirmed dead were shot by criminals this weekend.   Evidence suggests that only 18 of these shooters will be found for justice to be done.   The "social experiment" of gun control in Chicago has failed, it is time to resort to the only ethical solution... liberty!

You can be arrested for any reason

 To illustrate the problems with laws in Illinois, today we are looking at "disorderly conduct."   In Illinois Disorderly Conduct (a(1)) is defined as:

(720 ILCS 5/26‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26‑1)
(Text of Section from P.A. 96‑339)
Sec. 26‑1. Elements of the Offense.
   (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
        (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace

A law as vague as this exists, and is a large fine as a misdemeanor! If you have the right personality, any action could be disturbing that would provoke a breach of the peace.   But this bad law isn't really what I'm worried about, I'm worried about this growing trend of people being arrested on SUSPICION of disorderly conduct!   That's right!  Now you can be arrested if an officer is suspicious that you've disturbed someone.  This excerpt from UPI newstrack states:

"Wilks was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct, criminal damage to property and resisting arrest."

To summarize that story, a young man (Wilks) wearing ill-fitting pants was confronted by a city bus driver to fix his attire.   When he refused and told the bus driver to keep out of his business, the driver called police, who then continued to yell at him, and finally arrest him on 2 made up charges, and one made up charge that is a result of the previous made up charges.  

I'm wary of anyone getting arrested on suspicion of anything.   In the legal system to be detained there must be evidence of a crime.  Please keep your eyes out in your newspapers for people being arrested without evidence.

Friday, June 18, 2010

Brady campaign to prevent gun violence encourages the opposite

I normally stay within the midwest, but the article I read about Who's packing? NY gave me the feeling that I had to raise more awareness for this kind of senseless registration publishing.  The proof of my titled accusation comes indirectly from David Codrea's "War on Guns" blog, that I highly recommend to everyone.   After following the news link I noticed a strange correlation.  According to the daily star article,

"the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence supports the right to publish information that is public record, Peter Hamm, spokesman, said Tuesday.

The list is from records held by state police, who said the information likely was obtained through a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. State penal law, which covers firearms licenses, states "the name and address of any person to whom an application for any license has been granted shall be a public record."

If I told you that the most probable function of this list would be to get more people killed by illegal guns, both sides might think I was crazy.   Let me explain how this works:   Criminals who are looking for guns, a valuable commodity, can scope out this list and easily create "target neighborhoods" Places with few gun owners, and where everyone has a job.   They would easily scope out the neighborhood, break into houses when most people aren't home, and have a good chance of finding an easy to break safe, with guns inside.   The criminals can then take the stolen guns to perpetrate more crimes and kill people.   To support the publishing of this list is the same as supporting the publishing of diamond ownerships with names and addresses, and whether they registered with a security system company.  Just because one of the commodities isn't licensed yet doesn't mean it isn't valuable.   The person who published that list should be tried in court for treason for organizing criminals against citizens, or in other words, waging war on the citizens, the very definition of treason.  

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Christopher Drew needs our help!

A man who did a simple thing, Christopher Drew videotaped an encounter with a police officer in Chicago.

"Like our host, I’m of the opinion that it should always be legal to record on-duty police officers, both as a matter of policy and under the free speech, free press, and right to petition the government provisions in the First Amendment. We saw the power and potential of audio and video recording technology to expose government abuse in the Iranian protests last summer. But we also see it here in the U.S. with the thousands of  police misconduct videos uploaded to YouTube in recent years."

This is a city that watches its citizens with cameras more than anywhere else in the US!  Now Christopher drew has been charged with the Illinois Eavesdropping charge, a class 1 felony punishable from 4-15 years in prison, this is the same punishment as second degree murder!   So what I suggest is someone with some legal background hold a flame to Daley's butt, and put him on the spot for eavesdropping on over 10,000,000 people every day, and have the city of Chicago, and every other city official charged with over 10,000,000 counts of Illinois Eavesdropping, until the General Assembly has no choice but to change the law immediately!   The Cook County District Attorney won't return my phone calls for some reason.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

A single variable data analysis.

The single variable explored today is the homicide rate, and compared it with the creation of significant black markets in America, then correlated some data to the re-application of the rights of the citizens to bear arms.  You may note that the murder rates climb slightly before each large event, this is likely due to strengthening local and regional support for the creation of these black markets.  

I affirm this graphic was made by me, and is free for distribution. While I'd like a link back to the blog, it is not necessary

Monday, June 14, 2010

Preparing for upcoming Illinois history article: Jonathan Browning

After many hours of searching old newspaper articles, and reading different versions of history as presented by various Mormon documents, I have decided the best way to get a real accurate account on what happened to some of the most influential gun makers in history would be to head over to Quincy and Nauvoo IL to find out what really happened.   I have read reports of a gun battle of 1600 men vs 300, and have also read reports that there was no confrontation at all.   Time to get the real scoop, keep your eyes peeled in the near future for some good old fashioned investigative history.

What happened to our 4th amendment right?

In Illinois there is a recent standing history of the 4th amendment being chipped away.   At this point it is essentially non-existent.   I'll explain what happened, and when, the why's and the hows are beyond my analysis abilities at this point.

For years cars have been treated less like personal property, and more like state property.   Think of the 4th amendment in this context, "How would Thomas Jefferson react if a local police thug wanted to search his carriage without warrant?"  This is an argument used often by defense lawyers.  The colonial period response would be that the thug would be disallowed access to his carriage.  Now, what if the thug pulled out a weapon affixed at Mr. Jefferson, demanding entry, and that he stand down.   We know we would soon find a LOT of dead thugs.   This is a right so entwined in common sense, which is that no one has a right to your stuff, no matter what it is.   The same right that has been perverted for the last century, but many examples appear in the last 10 years.  

In Illinois v. Lidster 540 U.S. 419 (2004), the Supreme Court decision allowed what is known as focused informational checkpoints. However, discretionary checkpoints or general crime-fighting checkpoints are not allowed.  Regardless of these restrictions, Lake and Cook County Sheriff's police routinely set up DUI checkpoints, which in my opinion count as crime-fighting checkpoints, and not informational.   What's worse, is the police have no right to any information without due process, so these checkpoints should be entirely useless.   I have been through a number of them personally, the sheriff's thugs ask you to get out of the car, and when you do you lock your door behind you.   They instantly get suspicious, and want to get in your car.  Even though I have nothing to hide, they have no right to rifle through my belongings, and worse, I have good reason to suspect that they don't like me already and would be willing to plant criminal material in order to "bust" me for their satisfaction.  

In Illinois v. Caballes, 125 S. Ct. 834 (2005), The defendant was stopped for speeding by an Illinois State Trooper. While the first officer temporarily held the defendant in his police car while writing a warning ticket to the driver, another officer walked his canine around the defendants car. The canine "alerted" at the trunk of the car, and the officers searched it.  They found marijuana in the trunk.
The officers were able to make this search stick using something known as a holding.   What this particular holding means is the officers did not need probably cause to use a canine as long as the detection occurred while the defendant was detained in a lawful manner.

The real beginning to the end was Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), in which a probable cause search was loosely defined as: "a flexible, common-sense standard."  Conveniently this case was heard during America's first "war on drugs": prohibition.  This means that probably cause can be redefined as almost limitless things, so long as it "sounds" like common sense to a judge or jury.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Unwelcoming predators

Many cities charge you $25-$100 to get a "city sticker" which normally allows you to access to parking somewhere on public roads, or access to a special city resource.   Many people ignore them because they only park on their own property, or at their place of work in a different city.   Some people buy them because they believe they have to, but do not affix them to their vehicle because they never plan on using the services awarded by such sticker display.

Enter the predator:

The local code enforcement thug comes down the street, wearing body armor and carrying weapons.  Carrying a weapon down the street is not legal for normal citizens, and the penalty gets increased if body armor is worn in conjunction with carrying a weapon.  We already see special protections awarded by the law to the code enforcement thug based solely upon his or her occupation.  They exercise their special rights while trespassing on private property to issue $75 citations to people who had the nerve to park their cars on their own driveways.  They walk up the driveway to check for a sticker that isn't clearly visible from the road, then issue a fine in the form of a ticket.   There are murmurs here and there that people are getting fed up with this.

Illinois defines these code enforcement thugs as having "lawful authority" so they can do whatever they please as illustrated in the trespassing law.

(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
    Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
    (a) Except as provided in subsection (a‑5), whoever:
        (1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or
remains within or on a building; or
        (2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving,
prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
        (3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving
notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
        (3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents
his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.

So apparently every citizen of every Illinois town has to post a sign on their lawn that states "No Trespassing by Law Enforcement except in emergency" in order to keep these thugs from ticketing you on your own property.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

The Illinois Constitution says it all

What the Illinois State Constitution says about the right to bear arms, speaks volumes on the state's attitude as a whole.  The fact that it states firmly that you must be allowed to keep and bear arms, except that it also states you can't.   Read these eloquent weasel words and judge for yourself:

    Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Whenever you read a phrase like "police power" it normally means the lawmakers of the government, which is documented in the Illinois Criminal Code.   So what does the "police power" say about keeping and bearing arms?   It says keep them, yes, sure... until we don't renew your FOID card. 

Bear them?  You mean, carry them on you?  Oh no... no no no silly citizen.  That is reserved for Law Enforcement, we only want them shooting unarmed individuals.

Freedom in the 50 States

I stumbled upon this interesting website that ranks economic and personal freedom based on a number of criteria.  The weightings seem logical, but can be played with as this group furnishes the source data for further manipulation.   The data compares a number of laws that restrict personal, and economic freedoms.  The result is that Illinois ranks 49th out of 50 for personal freedom based on the weights chosen by the study designers.   Please review this easy to read graphic here:

It should come as no surprise to many to see states like Maryland, New York, and Illinois rounding out the bottom.  Download the data yourself, and modify the weighting to suit your values and see where the states fall.

What happens to confiscated guns?

Today is just pondering hypothetically out loud.
When a person in Illinois is convicted or pleas down an Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon charge, which if you read my previous post you'd realize this is nothing more than a ridiculous felony for transporting your firearm incorrectly, the court seizes the firearm and makes the former owner sign a release allowing it to be destroyed, or used for "Police purposes."   There is no accountable information on the serial numbers of destroyed guns that I can find.   I had recently gone to my local sheriff's office and requested a Freedom of Information Act copy of the proof of destruction of these weapons.    There were no such documents available.   This means that destroyed firearms are not documented in any way.   As far as the records show, anything could be happening to these weapons, including being resold on the streets at a terribly low price to pad someone's pockets.  

Monday, June 7, 2010

6 inches from a Felony

Probably the most atrocious law in Illinois at this current time is 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 otherwise known as "Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon." The unique way in which this law is worded makes it clear, this one is about citizen disarmament. Let's take a look at some of the details of this piece of legislation.

(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon when he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries on or about his or her person or in any vehicle or concealed on or about his or her person except when on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm; or

(2) Carries or possesses on or about his or her

person, upon any public street, alley, or other public lands within the corporate limits of a city, village or incorporated town, except when an invitee thereon or therein, for the purpose of the display of such weapon or the lawful commerce in weapons, or except when on his or her own land or in his or her own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm

So we've found that if you carry a firearm at all, you are guilty. If we dissected the 2nd amendment of the US constitution we would find some simple language. The right to keep (to have), and bear (to have ON you) arms shall not be infringed. Apparently Illinois is allowed to legislate such infringement, possibly because Illinois politicians do not consider Illinois part of the United States since they follow so little of the constitution.

Of course Illinois politicians have to let gun owners transport their weapons to hunting grounds, or out of the state, so they have a few caveats:

(c) This Section does not apply to or affect the transportation or possession of weapons that:
(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;
(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

So you need a special card, a FOID card, then you can put your M1a in a case, and transport it unloaded in your pickup truck.   Oh wait, what if you are from a neighboring state?  They don't give FOID cards to people from Wisconsin, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, or any other state because the system is linked with the DMV's license database.   So for example, if you are from Wisconsin, and you have a pickup truck, suddenly no matter where you put your revolver is illegal, even if it's unloaded and in a case.  The way I interpret this law, is that people from any state can take the trigger group out of their M1a and throw her up on the dashboard with a round in the chamber!  These lawmakers are BRILLIANT!  Oh, but it gets so much worse:

Here is the portion of the law that describes what is necessary to make this a crime:

(3) One of the following factors is present:
(A) the firearm possessed was uncased, loaded and immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(B) the firearm possessed was uncased, unloaded and the ammunition for the weapon was immediately accessible at the time of the offense; or
(C) the person possessing the firearm has not been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card; or 

(D) the person possessing the weapon was previously adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for an act that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or 
(E) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in a misdemeanor violation of the Cannabis Control Act, in a misdemeanor violation of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, or in a misdemeanor violation of the Methamphetamine Control and Community Protection Act; or 
(F) (blank); or
(G) the person possessing the weapon had a order of protection issued against him or her within the previous 2 years; or
(H) the person possessing the weapon was engaged in the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor involving the use or threat of violence against the person or property of another; or
(I) the person possessing the weapon was under 21 years of age and in possession of a handgun as defined in Section 24‑3, unless the person under 21 is engaged in lawful activities under the Wildlife Code or described in subsection 24‑2(b)(1), (b)(3), or 24‑2(f).

According to this section, that person from Wisconsin with a pickup truck, is still screwed.   Their gun is in a case, and unloaded, and can't be disassembled without a lot of undue fuss, so there is no way out.

To make matters worse, Illinois has linked Marijuana possession with carrying a gun.  Because police can be trusted so fully to NEVER plant drugs to hype up charges.

Nonetheless, thousands of out of staters, and many in state residents have succumb to this legislation for some reason.   One court counselor admitted to me that big rig truck drivers are most commonly brought in on this charge, many of them have some type of weapon to protect themselves from robbery or attack while on the road, and a broke Illinois government can't help but to destroy lives, and steal money over complete nonsense.  This law is such nonsense, that they left subsection (f) blank!

You may think I'm overreacting about the destroying someone's life, but if you look at the punishment, it does not fit this crime.    We are talking about a victimless-crime that involves no property damage, or emotional stress that centers around a right that Americans have to keep, and bear their arms... and doing so is a felony.

(d) Sentence. Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon is a Class 4 felony;

Governor Quinn once stated that "Aggravated unlawful use of a weapon just means that you shot at someone and missed." He said this in order to get the law passed to strengthen this law from a class 4 felony, to a class 1 felony, so in January 2011 it becomes a class 1 felony. What he didn't realize, is that the law he was really talking about was "Aggravated discharge of a firearm." Leave it to an Illinois governor to not know which it is.

Of course law enforcement is exempt, as they open carry loaded pistols every day, and have rifles within reach that are loaded in their cars.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

How Illinois breaks its own laws.

Have you ever read any of the Illinois Criminal Code? Most people would say no. If you did, you may find a lot of it enraging. The first thing that should glare out at you, is that almost everything that is illegal to a normal citizen of Illinois, is perfectly legal for a Law Enforcement officer. Let's use, for example 720 ILCS 5/14‑2 Illinois Eavesdropping laws. It states, that if you record anyone without all party's consent, you may be guilty of up to a class 1 Felony. A bit steep for not injuring, or taking property from anyone, right? This is the same punishment as of sexual assault, a very invasive, violent crime. One might call eavesdropping a non-violent, non-property crime which at worst should never be more than a fine. Well it gets worse. You may wonder how Chicago can be the Most Watched City if this law prevented any videotaping without all party's consent, right? Welcome to the dubious Illinois double standard applied to every single one of its laws. Pick any one out the the Illlinois Criminal Code, read it, and look for the portion that exempts law enforcement from it. In the case of Eavesdropping, there is a whole section that exempts law enforcement. It reads something like this:
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge brought under this Article relating to the interception of a privileged communication that the person charged:

1. was a law enforcement officer acting pursuant to an order of interception, entered pursuant to Section 108A‑1...

There are a couple caveats in there that are obviously there to protect corrupt politicians from all but Federal law enforcement's arm, but on the whole, this law essentially attacks the citizens and people of the state of Illinois. The only problem I seem to find here, is that most of the citizens of this state... like it that way?