[Incognito]

I believe if the arrest or whatever may merit being recorded is taking place in public in broad view of other people, then the shooter should have complete freedom to record as they feel. Only under the circumstances where something is being done in a very secretive location (i.e. for investigative purposes, away from the public eye), then maybe I could see the justification in not allowing recording, but even this is a stretch. If the officer is under cover or the recording may jeopardize his life (or other lives) or an investigation where secrecy is vital, then yes, do not permit the distribution of the recording.

I believe it's just because cops are so afraid of being caught doing something stupid or illegal. It's a covering-your-ass defense. Police lose their tempers or simply do not enjoy being on their best behavior every single minute, so they're angry or scared they'll be seen.

It's a media-induced world though. With everyone having video-recording-enabled phones, constant twitter updates, and personal cameras, it's virtually impossible to avoid them when on duty.

When a professional company is recording people, they are required for the people in the video to sign consent forms, otherwise they're removed or their identities blurred. Requiring the average citizen to have such consent in writing (since verbal agreements will not hold up in court unless there are multiple witnesses to said agreement) is silly.

If a person decides to record something on their camera, have a backup dummy memory card in case they want to seize it on the spot. Agree to hand the [dummy] card over, they'll review it and just figure you had deleted it, putting their mind at ease that their actions were not recorded (at least, this is what I would do; I am not a lawyer clearly).

Again, at the very least, if an event is occurring in the full view of the public, making it illegal to record it is just plain stupid.