The footage of the fatal shooting of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, said one journalist, “shows that the final act of his life was trying to help a woman who was being physically assaulted by the masked agents who would then kill him.”
In the original video of the shooting of a man in Minneapolis, identified by the Minneapolis Star Tribune at 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a woman in a pink coat was seen in the background filming the incident with her phone.
Drop Site News obtained footage that appeared “to come from the direction of the woman in pink filming from the sidewalk” and showed the shooting at a closer distance than the footage taken from inside Glam Doll Donuts.
In the video, the shooting victim, dressed in a brown coat and pants, is seen filming a federal agent with his phone. He’s then seen guiding another person toward the sidewalk as the agent forcefully shoves a third person to the ground.
Please dont boil it down to this. It is perfectly legal to post videos of police in Germany, you just have to obscure the faces of all people in the video that did not consent to it being publicy available. Furthermore, the spoken word has additonal protections in place. Yes, the european data protection legislation can be difficult to navigate, but bear in mind that it focuses on the personal rights of ALL people, even police. However there is still the possibility to publish material unedited if it has cultural or historical significance. Of couse this would go to court, but hey: At least we have courts to settle those matters transparently. KG Berlin – Az.: 2 ORs 31/23 – 121 Ss 130/23 – Urteil vom 30.11.2023
Right. Merely making the recording may already be criminal; not only sharing it. I didn’t want to sound too alarmist. But when we’re ad it. Pixelating the faces means processing personal data which may already be illegal.
What it boils down to is this: If some lawless government goons arrest anyone recording their deeds and seized their phones, no honest, law-abiding judge or police officer would see a problem with that. Anyone live-streaming, just in case, would be guilty of violating fundamental rights in the eyes of all defenders of European values. The government could rely on the technical and organizational infrastructure to enforce GDPR to suppress inconvenient videos without bending the law.
But no problem. Freedom of information is in the constitution. So you just go to court and insist on your right. Of course, a far right government will have packed the highest courts with its people, and so you lose. Well, everyone has rights. Freedom of information isn’t everything. No problem there.
You clearly have no legal training and know nothing about EU law or the national legal systems of its members, many which go back to ancient Roman law.
Go back to school, JD.